Would the Earth be better off without humans?

[Koolblue13]

Yeah, Who Del, I hear you. I live in Bucks County and we continue to lead the country in hitting deer year in, year out. But still...

[zoony]

Humans vastly overestimate their significance.

[Koolblue13]

zoony, do I get some kind of reward, for starting the "worst thread ever"?

That's a pretty big statement around here.

[DRSmith]

We treat each other like crap we treat our planet like crap, but if we choose to we could do a lot of good for and with the Earth and one another.

[Bang]

Humans interfere with nature...big time! I think the Earth is rapidly decaying (relatively speaking) because of human interference.

So yes, the Earth would be better off without humans because it would be healthier.

Humans are part of nature. We are a natural occurring species on this planet, so the entire premise of us interfering with nature is inherently flawed.

However, we have impact like no other species does, and I believe that many things we do are detrimental to ecological balances.

But that is also part of our nature.

We overcompensate for our lack of teeth and claws and speed by building and creating a safer environment for ourselves, and by doing so we push other species out.

But we're not alone in this, either. Many species dominate their immediate surroundings, and destroy everything within it, including entire other species. Ants make war on other species of ant, and enslave the conquered. In fact, some species of ants goes on the march and kills everything in it's path. Some plants strangle and kill acres of other plants to give itself dominant position for water and sunlight. Kudzu, for example destroys everything else around it. In the rain forest if a big tree falls, the smaller trees that were living in it's shadow accelerate their growth to be the first to fill the void, and thus spread their leaves and deprive every other plant beneath it of sunlight.

Whether or not the Earth would be better off without us... what is the alternative? Without us, other species would dominate, and then depending on which species you asked the same question, you'd get the same answers. For example, ask the zebra if the world would be better off without the lion, and he'd certainly say yes.

~Bang

[PokerPacker]

The Earth is just a ****ing rock.

[NickGiaquinto1]

To those of you who answered yes.... Make a difference and leave the earth in an orderly fashion.

[panel]

Deforestation definitely leads to the extinction of thousands of species.

Pollution does the same.

So, factually, we do impact other species on our planet. I'd say that's fairly significant.

I figured their would be some hate for this line of thought, but damn.

What every exists right now, is natural. The fact that humans require a lot of resources is part of who we are, and we are natural creatures too. Beavers knock down trees and dam up rivers, and that affects other life, but it too is natural. If a virus exists and kills every form of life on the planet, that is natural.

As far as "mother nature" is concerned, what ever exists right now, IS the natural balance. The natural balance can change on a minute by minute basis, and that is fine. "mother nature"/the plane earth, does not care what lives on it.

If we agreed that the planet would be better off without humans, what is really happening is that, a couple humans decided that the earth would be better off without humans. The earth never had a vote it this, the other animals didn't have a vote in this. But a few humans made this decision based on what they thought was in the other creatures best interest.

Why is deforestation bad? Because it kills some animals? But it eventually will provide new home and space to creatures that thrive in less forested areas. Now, deforestation may be bad for humans, because it cuts down on o2 creating trees, and we loose natural medicines, and it may end up hurting us and other creatures, but it doesn't harm the earth as a whole.

There will always be a natural balance, we (like every creature) contribute and change that natural balance, but one natural balance is not superior to another natural balance.

[panel]

By the way, how come there is not a "NO" response on this poll, did you think that there is no way that anyone could just strait up think that the earth would not be BETTER without humans?

[jpillian]

Humans vastly overestimate their significance.

From the other end of the spectrum, I think humanity is of singular significance.

I think on the individual level, we often overestimate our own importance to humanity.

Of course, all of this definitely hinges on how we define significance.

I doubt I have the the time to dedicate to this question today, so I'll leave this point to the rest of the board for embracing/tearing apart.

[Chachie]

The Earth isn't living. It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't get sick or get better. It just is.

My knee jerk reaction was to disagree with this statement until I noticed who posted it. I don't argue with Peter. However, Pete- I am hoping you'll explain it to me.

Edit- Bang did a pretty good job.

[abdcskins]

Environmentally speaking, yes the earth would be better off without humans. Without a doubt. We destroy the earth.

[Ax]

Well, Bang, and HOF44 said it all, really.

But, to chime in.

Thousands, if not millions, of species of plants and animals have become extinct from deforestation, and pollution that was created, by the earth, or other natural occurrences, before man ever showed up.

Earth vs Man isn't anything close to a fair fight.

We, cannot, destroy the Earth. At the most, we might alter our ability to live on it. Nothing more.

[Koala]

What yall talking about? There's NOTHING we can do that a quick ice age wont resolve. Mass extinctions are just Earth's way of taking a shower. Man o man, people are so arrogant, we'll be gone in the the blink of an eye. As Quran quotes, "Is man unaware how many eons passed when he was nothing, not even given thought?"

[HOF44]

We, cannot, destroy the Earth. At the most, we might alter our ability to live on it. Nothing more.

This is really they key here. From our point of view we are destroying the earth. Because what we are doing makes it more toxic for humans and some other species.

The reality is we may be sitting up a situation for a species to thrive in. Just because we ruin the planet for us doesn't mean everything comes to an end for the planet.

[LD0506]

Yanno, the extinction of the dinosaurs all started with a poll like this

[Midnight Judges]

We really haven't been industrialized for very long. IMO, people will eventually find a way to undo a lot of the damage we have inflicted, if not clean the planet more than the damage we have inflicted.

I agree it is human nature to overestimate our own significance. But that doesn't mean we don't make a mess or that we couldn't do a better job of minimizing that mess (regardless of how significant you think that is).

So I don't think Earth is better off without us. And in time, we will learn to be a net gain for the planet.

[Koolblue13]

Humans are part of nature. We are a natural occurring species on this planet, so the entire premise of us interfering with nature is inherently flawed.

However, we have impact like no other species does, and I believe that many things we do are detrimental to ecological balances.

But that is also part of our nature.

We overcompensate for our lack of teeth and claws and speed by building and creating a safer environment for ourselves, and by doing so we push other species out.

So, in your opinion, we can't do better? If we were to live in a more environmentally friendly way, didn't pollute and didn't have war, the Earth and the things on it, would thrive, just as well as they do now, but in a different fashion?

[Koolblue13]

We, cannot, destroy the Earth. At the most, we might alter our ability to live on it. Nothing more.

That's basically the point I was trying to ponder. I know we can't eliminate the Earth (it wouldn't surprise me if we could, just not like this an that's a completely different conversation about death rays and sci fi).

I am merely thinking about the impact we have on the lives of every other living thing, besides ourselves on the planet. The plants, animals, the water and us.

Not "just the ****ing rock", as stated above.

[HOF44]

So, in your opinion, we can't do better? If we were to live in a more environmentally friendly way, didn't pollute and didn't have war, the Earth and the things on it, would thrive, just as well as they do now, but in a different fashion?

You are making the assumption that nothing can thrive in the "bad" conditions we create. Regardless of conditions on earth some group of species will always thrive. We just see perfect conditions as those that are most conducive to our species and those that require a similar environment to thrive.

[Skins24]

HOF is right...

And the comment about this being probably the worst poll ever is right. And yeah, where's the No option?

Personally, I think so. I can't think of anything we have done, to make it a better place, for every living thing, except maybe the rat.

Seriously?

There are species that are flourishing now because we introduced them to an area due to our travels.

We consume to a point of deforestation, across the globe. we pollute our water sources, to the point we need to clarify it to be able for us to drink. Most animals have been able to evolve enough, to continue drinking out of rivers and lakes, but not all of them.

So these animals that don't drink out of rivers and lakes....do they order water bottles or something?

When we drive down the road and see dead deer, foxes and raccoons, we are so desensitized, we don't think twice. If we hit a deer, our first thought is usually that of an insurance claim, not of the pain inflicted or the life force taken, in the sense of human convenience.

Deer and overpopulated because of us. Without us, there would be an increase in predators in these urban regions. That deer would have likely died anyway.

We carefully place poisons around our homes, spray pesticides that are poisonous to us and all animals and insects on our food, while it grows.

Speaking of growing, we have made deserts bloom.

(for good or bad) We have saved millions of acres of forests by putting out fires instead of letting them burn.

We treat animals as if they were merely placed on Earth for our own substance and farm them like they are simply already beef patties and bacon slices, despite knowing they understand what is going to happen to them.

You're kidding right?

Every single animal and plant on Earth is something else's substance.

Sorry to disappoint you but humans need food to survive.

and although I'm not religious or do I even believe in (nor not believe, more indifferent) God, but if there is one, would he approve of our effort to sustain the gift we've been graced with.

Maybe not, but pretty sure He's a lot more concerned with how we treat our fellow human beings.

[Koolblue13]

WTF is wrong with the poll? It's yes, no and maybe?

Is it that hard to figure out? What should I have written?

[Ax]

I am merely thinking about the impact we have on the lives of every other living thing, besides ourselves on the planet. The plants, animals, the water and us.

As Bang said, we are the Earth. It created us too.

Plants, kill other plants, animals, and humans, without thought or care.

Animals, kill other animals, plants, and humans, without thought or care.

Humans, kill other humans, plants, and animals, with, or without thought or care.

The earth, kills everything, without care.

Nature. You gotta love it!

[Pwyl]

WTF is wrong with the poll? It's yes, no and maybe?

Is it that hard to figure out? What should I have written?

Yes, no and maybe would have worked fine. Instead you couched the "no" in such a way that you have to agree with a fallacy (Humans make zero difference, which is obviously false, people only disagree on the degree) to choose it.

[Koolblue13]

As Bang said, we are the Earth. It created us too.

Plants, kill other plants, animals, and humans, without thought or care.

Animals, kill other animals, plants, and humans, without thought or care.

Humans, kill other humans, plants, and animals, with, or without thought or care.

The earth, kills everything, without care.

Nature. You gotta love it!

Which plant genetically alters another species in a way to make it more edible?

Which animal farms other animals like they are a plant?

What animal intentionally tortures it's own species?

What critter kills for reasons other than food or safety?

What creates toxic waste, other than us?

I understand that we are part of the Earth, I understand that Earth created us, that's simplifying things way too much and hardly the point, except to remove any accountability for the impact we do have, IMO.

Are Humans around the world, living in a fashion that most benefits the majority of other living things on the planet?