"The world would be better off without humans."

[GaYellowDawg]

What a stupid sentiment. I don't think anyone who makes that statement actually thinks through the implications of it. If you really think that, then murder is good, because it takes one more human off the planet. If you really think that, then genocide is even better; after all, without all those pesky human beings, the planet's better off! You must have Hitler and Stalin posters in your bedroom - they got rid of more humans than anyone else in history. Surely you're a big fan of W's policies, with all the death in Iraq.

And I've never, never heard anyone who talks about how the earth would be better off without humans mention that they want to start with themselves, their family, or friends. Seems like it'd be appropriate.

[FlyingSquirrel]

1. There is one thing the earth would lose if there were no humans..

Love

[Bandit]

84. Animals love

I know that to be a fact..I am not sure whether they hate or not though as do humans.

[Lorien]

107. They sure do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr1pWzoLvT8

[Booster]

114. That was nice. Every time someone sends me to YouTube I end

up spending an hour looking at all the realted videos. Those are sure some brave people.

[El Pinko]

2. The world would be irrelevant without humans.

If nothing but plants and animals inhabited the earth, it would be nothing but a terrarium with no meaning whatsoever.

The fact that humans are here to observe and learn and make mistakes that makes the earth and all its other living things meaningful.

[karlrschneider]

13. Nonsense. Humans are not intrinsically more valuable, useful or good than any other form of life.

...

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

24. Sorry but youre wrong

Humans ponder our purpose, our existence, and have a sense of awareness greater than any animal. If any species on this planet reaches for the stars it will be humans..

There is no doubt we screw up big but he have the greatest potential...

[karlrschneider]

28. How does 'reaching for the stars' equate to a noble enterprise?

You can't know the answer and also you cannot demonstrate that humans have a "greater sense of awareness".

When you learn Dog and Redwood and can communicate in them fluently get back to me.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

32. Yes I can answer

"You can't know the answer"

The reason reaching for the stars is huge is because in 4.5 billion years our sun will go nova and leave the earth as a cinder in space. There is also the chace of a GRB or Massive ELE collision and then poof! all life on this rock is dead forever. with no legacy.. Going to the stars will preserve our planets legacy not only for humans but for any other species we take with us..

And if the obviousness of the fact humans are the only species which have stretched beyond our physical limitations to take to the sea, the air, and space and all of which is because we are the only speicies that can ask 'why' and then look for an answer.

Do you honestly believe Dogs comprehend the big bang? the nature of light?

[Sal Minella]

36. He means YOU can't understand when dogs talk to each other.

Anthropocentric thinking is what has made such a mess of this beautiful earth. "Meaning" is in the mind of the beholder. There is no intrinsic "meaning" imo.

Edit: Wittgenstein said, If a lion could talk, we would not be able to understand what it says. Intelligence, awareness, consciousness different from the human is not necessarily inferior to the human.

Suffocating the earth under thousands of square miles of asphalt and concrete does not strike me as valuable to the planet in any way.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

48. NIce straw man

"Suffocating the earth under thousands of square miles of asphalt and concrete does not strike me as valuable to the planet in any way."

1) Overpopulation is a seperate issue
2) Human environment issues are a seperate issue

--

The question was: is Earth better off without humans, not is earth better off without western culture..

[Sal Minella]

80. I don't see how the core of the problem can be considered "a separate issue."

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

121. The core of the issue is:

Would earth be better off without the crap western society is now doing...

You and the OP have turned that into 'better without people'...

Were/Are native Americans bad for the planet?

[bluedawg12]

58. Yeah, we're as sentient as a tapeworm, we ,burrow, crawl ,eat ,shit

and foul up our environmnet.

[bluedawg12]

59. Do you know why a frog has never created a symphony?

He doesn't give a shit about symphonies

[Art_from_Ark]

63. Maybe, to a frog and his buddies in a rice field,

their croaking actually is a symphony

[tekisui]

77. Bingo.

[karlrschneider]

37. I almost said the same thing in another post except for some details

As to what dogs comprehend, I have no clue and I daresay neither do you (and I'm not trying to be nasty here, you sound like someone I really would like to hang with and figure all this shit out with! :D)

But I suspect you're right, and dogs and cats don't know much about the big bang...and hell, I'm an educated man but *I* don't really "get" a lot of that stuff. I can do all the equations and calculate drag coefficients and magnetic permeability and I can't even figure out "tensile strength" (what actually holds subatomic-size particles TOGETHER?)

I can't communicate with my doggies beyond "hungry?", "woof" so I don't know if they conceive of their own existence or mortality. Probably not but it seems a little arrogant to say so, don't you think?

[Sal Minella]

44. My guess is, in the life of a dog, the ability to perceive mortality is of little use and therefore

of little consequence. When humans learn to sniff along the ground and follow where our dogs have walked, then we can work on teaching dogs to fear mortality.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

49. Humans had the skills to survive off the land 10K years ago

We decided that we wanted to know even more and because of our ability to ask and investigate that question we have grown beyond our physical limitations..

Dogs are content with food/sex/survival..

No Art, No Growing changing culture, No potential for survival when this rocks time runs out...

[Sal Minella]

78. This is true :: Dogs are content with food/sex/survival..

And unlike humans, they feel no need to pollute the oceans with billions of tons of poisons daily, tear mountains apart searching for coal for profit, transport themselves by means that alter the atmosphere and increase global climate destabilization, etc. ad inf.

Symphonies and long-winded philosophical discourse benefit only those few humans interested in those things (i.e., you). The vast majority of humanity seems intent on destroying the life-support structure for itself and all other multi-celled life forms.

[alfredo]

82. What changes will occur to the Canis familiarus? Some variations

will not fare well without us.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

89. Sigh

Thats a straw man argument. Humans dont need to polute and rape the planet and we are seeing in many societies a trend away from this.. Even in our own society we see a growing voice..

The nice things about humans is we create everything from symphonies and philosophy to rock and roll and sketch comedy there is something for most anybody...

[karlrschneider]

50. Not sure I get the logical path of that but I don't disagree either...much

:D

We've elevated the art of "who screwed who" detection from olfactory to psychoanalytical and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[Sal Minella]

74. Not logical path, just parallels --

Evolving an olfactory intelligence has served canines well.

Evolving fear of death has served human power structures well (fear of capital punishment deters murderers, fear of extirpation controls tribes, fear of annihilation controls countries).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

71. Ruff, ruff ruff ruff, ruff ruff. Ruff ruff ruff ruff ruff ruff; ruff ruff ruff.

Ruff- ruff ruff ruff!

[Donnachaidh]

30. humans also consume the most resources, kill the most species

Kill for Sport, foul their own nests with garbage and pollution. Humans hate other humans because of their skin-color, or religious beliefs, or life style.

We stopped showing our *potential* long ago. Right about the time one human decided the other guy's shiny rock was something he had to have, and killed him for it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

34. Missing the point

"Kill for Sport" Cats kill for sport

"Humans hate other humans because of their skin-color" Chimps hate and kill other chimps for so much less than color

"We stopped showing our *potential* long ago." Then why are you on DU fighting? Have the progressive Scandinavian nations stopped showing their potential?

"Right about the time one human decided the other guy's shiny rock was something he had to have, and killed him for it."

*EVERY* species on the planet does that, Hell fish in a tank do that all the way up to humans and *everything* in between..

[Donnachaidh]

38. No -- you're missing the point

No other species is arrogant enough to think that it is at the top of the food chain. And where exactly does a fish in a tank kill other fish for possessions like money, cars, etc.?

This very sort of "humility" is my point -- we lost our potential a long time ago. Some of us get it. Some don't.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

51. Well youre half right

"No other species is arrogant enough to think that it is at the top of the food chain."

"And where exactly does a fish in a tank kill other fish for possessions like money, cars, etc.?"

Territory and mating rights (cichlids)

--

"This very sort of "humility" is my point -- we lost our potential a long time ago. Some of us get it. Some don't."

LOL yea someone who is sure 'he gets it' is talling me about humility..

Western industrial corporate culture is not the human races natural state, well grow out of it..

[karlrschneider]

41. In college (Aeronautical Engineering) we liked to describe helicopters this way:

"the only machine ever designed by man that is constantly attempting to destroy itself" (strength of materials never quite caught up to the demands made of it)...

There's something "not right" about the human brain...we do not operate for our own common benefit. I find that
incredibly fascinating...and sad.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

52. Most animals only operate for their self good..

Do you think a lion that overtake a rival kills the rivals cubs for the good of the species..

[karlrschneider]

53. Yes. Or no. Whatever you think is right.

I am only an egg.

[Sal Minella]

83. I think you're a GOOD egg, though.......

[El Pinko]

46. There is no right or wrong, good or bad in the evolution of species.

Humanity's wanton nature may destroy much of the earth's ecosystem, which will lead to the fall of humanity, which will clear the way for the evolution of the next top of the food chain.

You see it on a small scale all the time - organisms multiply out of control, eat everything in sight and foul their habitat, then die out en masse. Why should humans be any different?

Large-scale extinction events have happened on earth before and will happen again. Humans may very well cause (or be causing) the next one.

But assigning morality to it only makes sense in terms of how it relates to humans.

The earth doesn't care if humans or any other species exist upon it or not. It will just keep hurtling through space, only to be burnt to a crisp by our dying sun.

[VotesForWomen]

61. humans definitely have the greatest capacity for self-indulgence and self-glorification. nt

[alarimer]

85. I agree. We ar a random act of evolution,.

There is no purpose, no direction to evolution (except generally in the direction of higher complexity, which does not imply that we are worth more).

I make no secret of the fact that I despise the human species. We are an utter waste of oxygen and we will eventually kill ourselves off. Extinction is almost inevitable.

[yawnmaster]

118. extinction of all life is inevitable with or without humans.

Eventually we will be swallowed up by our dying sun.
All life, all memory of life, all will be gone... no matter what we do today or tomorrow.

BTW, evolution does have a direction and that is to those species that can best reproduce to the next generation, by whatever means turns out to be successful.

I can somewhat understand the misanthropy, especially when one looks at man and how technology has advanced at a greater pace than man's morality, and how it appears as we have no power to stop the path we are on. This fear of the future can be projected to self hating.

[ashling]

14. That sounds awfully fundie to me

Humans are no the be all and end all of everything . On second thought, they might be the end of all ... at least the end of all human life (not to mention most of species now living)

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

25. No matter how one thinks we got here

God, Evolution, a universal consciousness...

Humans are right now the most aware species on the planet, its our duty to steward the earth. Its not a job weve been doing well but someday well grow up enough to do it..

[ashling]

54. The post to which I was responding

contained the assertion that the world would be irrelevant without humans. That is a fairly presumptuous statement.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

75. But right nowwe are the only species capable of carrying the legacy of earth

beyond this solar system which will die off in 5 billion years..

[ashling]

104. But what kind of crieria is that for relavence?

None.

The earth is not relavent or irrelavent based upon humans or their ability to do didely squat.

It is because it is. That is relavence enough.

[El Pinko]

27. I'm actually an atheist.

But the fact is that of all life on earth, only humans are sentient and capable of percieving that there is an earth.

Evolution may eventually awaken the minds of other species, but at this point, humans are it.

That's not to say that a dog has no worth, but without man, it is just a scavenging pack animal.

[ashling]

108. I'm not commenting on your religion

And I don't think that your perception of the perception of any other creature is a valid criteria for determining its "relavence." To say that it is is akin to the fundie presupposition that I believe it therefore it is so.

As to evolution, were our pre human ancestors relavent. If they hadn't existed, neither would we. and that's a one in a brazillion (sorry, couldn't pass it up} shot.

Besides, who says scavenging pack anamils are irrelavent or without worth. I would give a lot more for some of those animals than many humans I am aware of.

Is a rock, a tree, a stream relavent? Ask Maya Angelou.

[El Pinko]

112. The rock and tree could are only relevant because people like Angelou took note of them

The dog would never take notice of a rock or tree, except to piss on.

And no, I don't think our pre-human ancestors are of much consequence either.

Even humans only represent a tiny flicker of signigicance in the universe, probably only a momentary one at that.

[ashling]

113. Then are you saying that nothing is relavent?

Or are you saying that something is only relavent to the degree that something else can or does take note of it ... preferably, humans, according to your earlier post.

[El Pinko]

122. It's relevant to the degree that humans find it relevant.

WIthout sentient beings to observe it and be affected by it, the universe is just an infinite span of chaotic matter and energy, with a few of its tiny spherical particles infested with tiny organisms.


The sentient beings needn't be human - there probably are sentient beings on one of the other far-flung worlds of the universe, and they're as insignificant and ephemeral in the grand scheme of the universe as we are.

Their significance, as well as ours, comes from the value such beings put on their lives and the lives of those around them.

I'm saying that our world is of profound importance - to us. And keeping our world alive with a rich diversity of life is a goal in keeping with OUR interests. We don't do it because we care about the feelings of the animals and plants. If that was so, we wouldn't kill and eat billions of them every day. We do it because the thought of living in a devastated and contaminated world devoid of life other than ourselves, the roaches and the rats is too ghastly to imagine, and because we know we would eventually fall to disease and starvation.

The earth and everything on it is ephemeral and momentary in nature. But we exist in that moment so it means everything to us.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. How arrogant. nt

[Muttocracy]

31. that sounds tautological because you're defining relevance

based on what's meaningful to humans. So yeah, without humans there is no human observation, by definition.

And that thinking benefits the physical earth and its other biological inhabitants how?

[El Pinko]

45. In the grand scheme of things, even with humans the earth is only of importance to humans

It's a tiny rock drifting through infinite space, tethered to a sun that will engulf and destroy it.

Life on earth has existed for a blink of an eye out of cosmic time, and will only last for another blink at most.

With humans, at least we are here to observe that and try to make sense of it.

Without humans, the earth is little more than a petri dish abloom with bacteria - one that will be sterilized sooner or later.

Without humans, it's likely that nobody would ever have made note of the existence of the life on it, in all it's splendor.


In other words, the earth and all the life on it are utterly insignificant, except to US. And to US, they mean everything.


If you think that's arrogant, so be it. I think it's the exact opposite to acknowledge our own insignificance in the universe.

[bluedawg12]

55. Amen. I think, therefore hot sh*t I am ? LOL.

Value is relative. Who is to say the entire living planet-in natural balance is not more valuable and proper than our epiparasitic selves?

[Ghost Dog]

62. "the entire living planet-in natural balance" - bingo.

And humans are at this time part of it (impossible not to be), although we are seriously tipping the scales and likely will get thrown off unless and until we change our ways (or our ways get forcibly changed for us). Think of ourselves in bacterial (most of life) or viral terms and it's a matter of not destroying the host.

Gaia.

As for reaching-out beyond (to the stars) - let's get on with it (while treading as lightly as possible).

It's very interesting to observe that the 'seeds' of life (the basic biochemical building-blocks) appear (to our current science) to be scattered widely throughout the universe...

"Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see". - http://www.religiousworlds.com/taoism/ttc-list.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. The universe is irrelevant without consciousness.

There are some who argue that we aren't all that and a bag of chips in the consciousness department, but until my dog says something interesting to me, I'm going to assume that we're as good as it gets.

[warren pease]

96. Nonsense...

From the human perspective, the world would indeed be meaningless without us (although figuring out how we'd even know that is beyond my metaphysical abilities). And there are anomalies like Mozart and Mother Teresa and Mark Knopfler and Renaissance art and architecture and the back alleys of Prague and... There's a lot of wonderful stuff humans have created and accomplished over the centuries. However, for every Mozart it seems there are at least a couple dozen Cheneys or Pol Pots or Erik Princes running around fucking things up for everybody and everything. So on balance, I think the rest of the planet's species would do just fine without us -- rats, roaches and republicans (is that redundant?) the lone exceptions.

It would be paradise for all the species that we've either hunted to extinction, wiped out through sheer ignorance or have/are now severely stressing via habitat intrusion or destruction.

The proximate causes are far too many and the interlocking dependencies far too complex to list here, but a few of the most harmful practices include over-development; topsoil loss; soil nutrient depletion; destructive logging practices and the erosion and river silting they produce; rain forest logging followed by soil laterization and desertification; inadequate crop rotation; overuse of pesticides and herbicides; ozone depletion and rapid CO2 build-up; the western carnivorous diet and the resulting massively polluting feed lots containing animals for slaughter; lousy sanitation throughout the developing world; human-induced climate change; bad and worsening pollution on virtually every square meter of the planet; discrete events that produce devastating environmental consequences (Exxon Valdez, Iraqi occupation, Chernobyl, sinking of the Thresher, et al); increasing storm intensity and duration destroying habitats destruction; increasing incidence and duration of droughts; increasing size and severity of forest fires; rapid human population growth (doubling now every 60 years or so, an improvement over the 35-year doubling rate during the '60s but that's still about 13 billion humans by around 2065)...

I could blather on, but I try to avoid making myself so crazy first thing in the morning that I end up spending the rest of the day drinking heavily :beer:

and then paying the price. :puke:


wp

[dysfunctional press]

105. "meaning" is irrelevant.

it's a human term and concept, and without humans, it would have no...meaning...in the first place.

[dusmcj]

110. you're either a troll (Dem or Rep?) or a moron

yes, that was ad hominem. Potentially.

The Good Lord our God whose name is so frequently mouthed by those from whose mouths it should not come, and his Creation, I suspect do not give a FLYING FUCKING SHIT whether we exist or not. The sky will still pass light with a frequency that we call blue, water will still flow downhill, and plants and animals will still eat, sleep, screw and shit. And do it in a lot cleaner air and water probably than when we were around. Go walk around in that terrarium and experience some of its forces sometime to inform yourself how utterly inconsequential you, and your little thoughts about meaning, and the rest of us are, on the scale of the Creation at large.

One thing we're maybe good for, aside from acting stupid and breeding like flies, is sequestering carbon. Consider: at an average 150lbs a piece, 6 billion of us sequester a total of 450 million tons of carbon. Since the earth is a closed system, every time we breed, we bind most of 150 lbs of carbon from source compounds like natural gas (pun intended) and foodstuffs into a container where it's kept for about 80 years. If we breed fast enough maybe we can curb global warming.

So then - unless you were being an agent provocateur and trying to provoke an appropriate reaction like mine via a false flag op (tsk tsk) I propose that you're either a Freeper in disguise (do they still exist ? or what is this election's species of imbecile ?) or need to open up that plate up there occasionally and dust.

BTW I think it would be sad if the event specified by the thread topic came to pass and will do nothing to further it. There are already plenty of idiots trying to ensure that our species is so "successful", each and every one of us, that we succeed ourselves into extinction.

[spoony]

126. Yeah it's sooo right wing to think humans have value

Everyone knows you have to root for extinction if you're a REAL liberal :eyes:

[pitohui]

115. you need to get out more

so speaks a city child with no grasp on reality

trust me, wild plants and wild animals are actually out there in places on the planet running their entire lives without any input, supervision, permission, or fake-ass "meaning" imposed on them by humans at all!

the billions of years before us, and the billions of years after us, are just as real and meaningful as the 100,000 with us

it's silly and ego-centric to think otherwise

i don't need "el pinko" inspecting me to have a valid, meaningful, happy life

[ixion]

3. To quote Kurt Vonnegut:

"Just because we can read and write and do some math, that doesn't make us the Masters of the Universe."

[Trajan]

6. NOTE the Avatar ....

We will miss the old man ....

[ixion]

68. indeed... he was one of those humans who gave humanity a good name

it's a shame that the vast majority do otherwise. :(

[Double T]

4. Let's check back in 100 million years and see if evolution can really screw up twice.........

in a row. And YES; the PLANET would be better off WITHOUT humans.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

26. Horse Crap....

The planet is a ball of rock with gas and liquid clinging to the surface..

Its a planet that has seen period where 90% of all life extinguished in before humans are not needed for mass extinctions..

[Muttocracy]

29. humans didn't invent extinction but the issue is rates of extinction

and making a pretty amazing effort to make the planet inhospitable for ourselves.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

35. The earth has been warmer and the earth has been colder

And has atmospheres wildly different than the one we are creating.. Life will continue and many of the big die offs in the fossil record dwarf what humans are capable of..

[Muttocracy]

39. again my point is rate (losses per time) not total # of extinctions in 4.6 billion years

I know that climate and species composition have not been constant. I have a graduate degree in biology and I don't have time to argue this and you aren't listening anyway.

[Donnachaidh]

40. channeling Glenn Beck?

:rofl:

[alarimer]

86. The current extinction rate is much higher than anything that has come before

And we are affecting the climate. That is scientific fact, just like evolution. We simply do not know how bad th effects will be, but we know enough to be sure that they will be bad.

[Double T]

128. Sure, extinction by cataclysmic 'external' forces.

The planet certainly hasn't had extinction of 90% of ALL LIFE caused by one irresponsible, greedy, arrogant, self destructive, 'intelligent' species.

[Trajan]

5. While I agree with your overall sentiment ....

Your argument is seriously flawed .... It is completely fallacious ...

[mihalevich]

11. Plants would do allot better without

flowers. It takes energy for a plant to flower, and thus reproduce. Maybe, we are the Earth's reproductive organ. Our propose in terms of the Earth is to reproduce the Earth, or start life on a new plant.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. no...

Without the flower, the plant could not attract the insects it needs to pollinate, and thus reproduce. There would be no flowers.

The planet would do just fine without us, and did as a matter of fact for millions of years.

[Muttocracy]

42. maybe I got lost in the typos

but for starters many plants don't have flowers - flowering plants are one group of plants.

[Psephos]

7. There are how many bazillion planets without humans?

Seems like the universe can afford to be indulgent on this one.

[tabatha]

8. If they are not careful humans will rid Earth of

all living things including humans.

[Lint Head]

9. If humans did not exist there would be no one to perceive the

existence of earth. :dem:

[Lint Head]

10. Thanks for the heart.

:redbox: :redbox: :redbox: :redbox: :redbox: :redbox: :redbox: :redbox:

[karlrschneider]

15. Bullshit. You can not know the sentience of life forms whose language you have not learned.

...

[Bill McBlueState]

119. surely there are ways to test for sentience

(whatever that is) that do not require knowing the language of the life form in question

[ashling]

16. At least no one YOU know

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

57. BFD! The earth does not need our perception. We need

the earth in balance.

[tekisui]

79. So?

Does the earth NEED to be perceived? Does it NEED to exist? How does that carry more value than an unperceived Earth?

[Clovis Sangrail]

12. This sounds like a Michael Savage rant

Thinking that the earth is going to shake us off like a bunch of fleas does NOT mean that you have to believe murder is good or genocide is better.
People who believe that can still be just as "moral" as anybody else while they're on the planet.

[bluedawg12]

56. We don't have to start cleaning house now

we are doing it slowly and we will be shaken off like the epi-parasites we are.

[DianeG5385]

17. Sure, as long as you're not a dog or a cat!

They would suffer but recover in the short term I'm sure. One thing, their association with humans for thousands of years has definitely made them smarter...they're working on that apposable thumb thing! Dew Claws unite!

[tuvor]

18. That's some mighty interesting logic you have there.

"Without humans" does not equal "eliminate humans".

There was a time when there were no humans on Earth. I'll bet Mother Earth was feeling a lot less burdened then. Perhaps she'd say she was "better off" way back then.

As for the Hitler and Stalin posters comment, well...Like I said: some mighty interesting logic.

[flvegan]

21. No, the world would be better off without human ego.

Not humans, just their selfish, stupid...meh, nevermind.

[Lorien]

109. And it's often that selfish ego that leads so many to over reproduce

well, that and a lack of equal rights for women and birth control in much of the world. The earth can comfortably support 2 billion of us, but not 6.5, as we are already seeing.

[immoderate]

22. Humans are to earth as cancer is to the body.

Sorry, but that analogy holds.

No, I am not suggesting any cure. Natural selection will obtain.

--IMM

[karlrschneider]

33. Your analogy is close but not really apt. Here's the difference:

Cancer kills the host. Humans will only wreck the environment to the point it won't support their existence. Another species with a lesser tendency to do that will {survive, arise, or re-evolve}

And there will be the odd extinction-level events (comets, asteroids, gamma rays...etc.) which will restart the whole
thing again and again until Sol runs out of Hydrogen - and on down the line when the universe reaches maximum entropy and everything grinds to a cold dark halt.

[Donnachaidh]

43. So a better analogy would be -- humans are a virus on earth?

The host will survive once the virus has died, or killed itself off with it's own stupidity? :evilgrin:

[karlrschneider]

47. Hell, I don't know...maybe more like a parasite

it needs to keep the host alive for its own survival, but that doesn't really work either. It's just that homo sapiens needs a certain kind of planet to survive but the planet doesn't need them or actually much of anything else since it's just a big hunk of rock. ;-)

[Ghost Dog]

64. Yeah. At issue is not the planet (ball of rock) as such: It is the

terrestrial biosphere (the tissue of life - all life here as a complex interacting homeostatic whole - the nature of it) that's at stake.

[LanternWaste]

72. I think a lot of people on this thread have missed that most salient point.

I think a lot of people on this thread have missed that most salient point, and it's one that needs to perceived as a given in the context of this discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Maybe what you call cancer is the planet evolving a central nervous system- so it can defend itself.

Maybe it doesn't like getting whacked by big rocks every 30-60 million years or so, like the impact that killed off the dinosaurs.

I don't buy into the idea that Humanity, even with the pronounced impact we're having on the environment, is intrinsically "bad" or "good". In fact, while I think clear-headed action on and awareness of our myriad environmental problems and crises are clearly warranted, the self-flagellation and generalized grousy, bitchy, humanity-hating, like the sentence in the OP, that I sometimes see here and elsewhere strikes me as merely misplaced or sublimated religious guilt... by people who I suspect are still conditioned, on some level, to believe that "we are all sinners".

Certainly we're different, and interesting, and we're producing changes on a rapid scale. No question. Certainly it is in our best interest and the interest of all life for us to learn how to power our civilization sustainably and exist in better harmony with our natural environment. But like I said; perhaps the planet is experimenting with global intelligence with capabilities- like space travel and awareness of things like asteroid and comet impacts- that the biosphere has not been capable of previously. This, like all evolutionary developments, may be a gamble- a big one which carries inherent risks (intelligent technological civilization carries the potential for its own self-destruction and environmental degradation) yet also potential payoffs far beyond anything which could have been achieved when the highest forms of life were giant lizards.

[Ghost Dog]

67. Damn, that's very well said.

Let me meditate on that for a while... :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Very well said. n/t

[immoderate]

98. An immune system?

I didn't make a judgment on us. In the larger scheme the impacts you cite could be a molting process -- also morally neutral. The question is whether we can sterilize the biosphere. Still open.

--IMM

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Once we are gone consciousness will develop again

it just takes a global famine/drought and a big-brained species.

[VotesForWomen]

60. give it up. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Yeah, but the Solar System would be better off without Earth.

And the Galaxy... hell yeah, it would be better off without the solar system, which is fucking things up for all the OTHER stars in the neighborhood.

You're right, Mr. OP, what you've got there is a fucking meaningless, idiotic statement. For starts, anyone who makes it should define "better off".

[The Inquisitive]

124. Ditto

[mmonk]

69. Don't worry.

The bush administration has been working on the human problem.

[matcom]

70. actually, yeah .... it would

i'm currently reading "The World Without Us"

"The World" actually WOULD be better without us. Sad to say.

But you keep posting bullshit without merit. Go ahead. Free country and all that.

[LWolf]

73. No.

There would still be dogs, who are much better at pure, unconditional love than humans are.

Intellectually, the planet would be better off without humans. We're greedy and destructive.

That doesn't mean I want to wipe out my own species, though, lol. I'd rather work towards evolution. I'd like us to evolve into a less aggressively destructive species. One that lives lightly along with the rest of the living world, instead of in constant competition with it.

[tekisui]

76. It's Deep Ecology. It is self-indulgent to believe WE matter more than the Earth.

The greater good is not what benefits humans, but rather the entire planet. The world would infinitely better without humans. We destroy the air, pollute the oceans and rape the land. We steal the resources and kill the life.

Over population is OUR problem. We have no natural predator to keep us in check.

The Earth will keep turning long after humans have killed ourselves off. The Earth will survive the pain we've inflicted.

Humanity will get what it deserves, if we raise our consciousness and preserve the planet, and walk in balance, we'll go on. If we continue at the rate we are, we will become extinct, and the world will be better for it.

[Sal Minella]

90. Well said.

This thread reminds me of the "if a tree falls in the forest" question.

Some people seem to believe the only sounds worthy of the name are those heard by human ears.

Some elephant communication occurs below human hearing range, and the best explanation the biologists could come up with for a long time was "ESP."

And who knows -- they may have that, too.

[alfredo]

81. There's a lot of animals and plants that depend on us as a food source.

Certain plants and animals have adapted to us.

[NeedleCast]

87. Human Apologists

They're funny.

[tekisui]

88. Aren't they.

We matter! We do, I swear, because I am here and can see the earth and look at the stars! We're important!

[Sal Minella]

91. Yes, you're right!

Although I'm probably somewhat more important than you, because I live on the prairie where skies are clear and land is flat, so I can see MORE stars than you can see, prolly. But you also are important. Somewhat.
--------------------------

I've enjoyed your posts a great deal. Thank you for existing.

[MedleyMisty]

92. Have you ever heard of shades of gray?

I can think that the human species is stupid and hateful and ignorant and bent on destruction - you can't deny that without us the environment would be a lot better off and that humans have done a lot of evil and nasty things both to each other and to other species.

I can also think that all life is precious.

There is thinking about people as individuals and caring about them as individuals, and then there is thinking of them as a group and feeling utter and complete disgust at the actions of the group. Humans as a group suck a lot.

Maybe we should be more specific? The humans who destroy the planet and abuse and kill and hate each other and other species and start wars and commit genocide - and their conforming and non-thinking followers - are the ones the world would be better off without.

Humans aren't any more special than any other species. Worse, really - my cats don't hate and kill each other because of their fur color. Also they're not cheerfully and on purpose destroying the planet.

Also I can't find much evidence that the majority of us actually think - seems like we just sort of go along with the herd and are content to sit and chew our cud and then get slaughtered.

[ProfessorGAC]

93. I Think It's Normally Meant As Satire

Or as a sardonic comment. I think you're taking it too seriously.
The Professor

[0007]

97. There was a girl named Valerie Solanas.

She was quoted as saying, "first get rid of wars and disease and then men"
She also wrote a play called "Up Your Ass"

[McHatin]

99. I agree

Also, when people say the world would be "better off", they are applying a human standard. Without humans, there would be no such thing as "better off". The world could be a nuclear wasteland full of acid oceans and it would be no "worse off" than before.

I also do think that a human life is more valuable than any other life form. If a dog and child were about to get hit by a bus, and I could only save one, it's a simple answer as to what I'd do. Am I selfish for this? Somehow have a large ego? It is our responsibility, due to our great capacities for destruction or creation, to treat other animals with respect, but to treat them as pure equals?

If humans have no more worth than animals, then why should human concepts of morals be any more respected than animal morals? Take for example invasive species that kill off native species. Are these invasive species somehow immoral? After all, they are expanding at the expense of other species.

Anther thing I can't stand is that humans are somehow "unnatural". In fact, the very idea of something being "man-made" is kind of laughable. Humans exist as a product of natural laws and therefore are quite natural. We have evolved to the point that we can make things, such as plastic, that are not found in "nature". But plastic is completely natural if you think about it, as it was invented by a species who evolved through natural processes to the point where it obtained the ability to do so. Everything is "natural".

Generally, I find the idea that the Earth would be better off without humans quite repugnant, the result of an incredibly negative, apoplectic worldview. It completely ignores "good" qualities of humanity and logically, it makes no sense. Such people share a certain commonality with fundamentalist Christians who can't wait for Armageddon to cleanse the Earth of the horrible sinning humans.

[Uncle Joe]

100. We are the world in it's highest intellectual evolutionary form combined with space dust from comets

and asteroids. When we trash Earth without regard, we trash our ancestors and turn our home in to a toxic sewer for our descendants.

I imagine if humanity totally died out, we would come back in some form or another, most likely not human though and that's the way it will be until the universe gives birth to whatever it's gestating in the universal womb.

I believe the ultimate question is, can this life form carry it self out until that time has come and will the Gods and Goddesses allow us to have pain killers on the way out?

[leftofthedial]

101. what's your point?

just kidding!

[hatrack]

102. Too bad we wouldn't be able to see what comes next . . .

That's the really sucky part of death - you don't get to see how the story comes out . . .

You'd miss out, for example on the six-foot predator rats and their rabbit-descended prey, the rabbuck.



(With props to Dougal Dixon, author of 'After Man - A Zoology Of The Future"

[Rex]

103. The world might have been better off without humans ever evolving.

Now what you posted, is pure bunk and I doubt you gave much thought to any other options besides the kneejerk statement you gave. The world wouldn't NOW (in the present) be better off without humans, duh.

Tell us something we don't know.

However, it still doesn't mean that in the past our biosphere wouldn't be better off without billions of destructive bipeds that pollute and destroy nature.

[dysfunctional press]

106. maybe...but then who would pet my dog?

nt

[dusmcj]

111. this thread reminds me of droners who claim that the world only exists if they think of it

I think therefore you are.

Sophomoric but all too prevalent. Another reason why the world would be better off without humans.

Again, I think it would be sad if that event came to pass and will do nothing to further it. There are already plenty of folks working on that goal, they just haven't noticed.

[warrior1]

116. Life with people

[yawnmaster]

117. if there were no humans, how would we know...

How would we know the world would be better off if there were no humans?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?

There is no definition of better/worse, good/bad, moral/immoral, without humans.

Without humans the world would just "be" and eventually be engulfed in the heat of a dying sun and then eventual cooling to whatever the average temperature of the universe will be.

With humans there is purpose...why? because we alone can define and realize purpose, good/bad, etc..

As said up string... a world without humans would be irrelevant.

With things as they are today, I can understand some of this human self-guilt (although I suspect that some has existed throughout man's time on this planet - since man can feel guilt).

[Kazak]

120. Humans aren't the problem, it's our culture.

Humans lived here harmoniously for literally millions of years before our shift away from partnership-based society toward dominator-based society. True.

[TrogL]

123. There's nothing wrong with this place a plague wouldn't fix

[Dark]

125. Uh, if you think the earth would be better off without you, then why are you still here?

BTW, humans give the earth advantages too.

For example, some species have thrived because of us.

Also, our medical care has also made many animals' lives longer and healthier, and a lot less painful

Oh, and should there be some catastrophic event, who's going to have a chance to prevent it? A mountain goat?

Jeesh.

[casus belli]

127. The bottom line is..the earth is perfectly capable of deciding that on its own.

Our claim to the earth is weak. We claim mastery of the earth and all of its elements, yet time and time again, the earth proves that even the smallest of its temper tantrums make the planet a pretty inhospitable place to be. I won't say the earth would be better off without humans. I will say that we would be better off to understand that we are more at the mercy of the earth, than it is to us. Understanding that we are utterly and completely at the mercy of this large beautiful blue orb might force some of us to want to preserve it a little better and become better stewards of the incredible gift we've been given.

[Quantess]

129. Humans are an interesting story for Earth.

We will probably destroy most life forms on the planet before destroying ourselves, and then new life forms will take over. It's just my idea.