Ukraine Crisis Fund
We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Is the world screwed enough that it should be destroyed?
| 65 | 36888 |
From the things I have notice around the world, From territory disputes to social media activism, should this world be destroyed? Post opinions pls.
- 65 Replies
I think if the world was destroyed, your gonna have a bad time.
It depends, once in a while we get a person who change change the world but... yeah, we're screwed. So many people get killed by crappy people for either to gain wealth or just because they want to.
Just watch A Dose of Buckley to explain whats wrong with this world and yes i am only saying this because i'm listening to him right now.... but yeah our world screwed.
From the things I have notice around the world, From territory disputes to social media activism, should this world be destroyed? Post opinions pls.
Ideas like this pop up time and again, and I always have the same response: you go first.
Lets face it, however good your intentions are, humanity cannot be cleaned
The thread should have ended here.
Good point because reproduction wouldn't be best if only 5% of the world's population were spread out across the world. Would take a lot longer to repopulate the world.
Actually it would probably be beneficial to NOT repopulate the earth back to the same amount of humans we have. Overpopulation and all that jazz is a real thing. However terrible it sounds, it's probably a good thing to have a few less mouths to feed.
But we have created domesticated animals, that couldn't survive without us, so therefore we cant die.
Nature has a way of taking care of its own, you know. Give me a few examples of "domesticated animals" that can't survive without humans, please.
What man is to decide who should be destroyed, though?
Could be a woman.
Well. I think this thread should probably be locked down unless someone can provide an argument FOR the destruction of the world/humanity. It's fairly clear that no one agrees with the idea, and the entire idea really is a logistical and ethical nightmare.
Nature has a way of taking care of its own, you know. Give me a few examples of "domesticated animals" that can't survive without humans, please.
Battery chickens, cows and pigs. Also, if the triffids get loose...
Well. I think this thread should probably be locked down unless someone can provide an argument FOR the destruction of the world/humanity. It's fairly clear that no one agrees with the idea, and the entire idea really is a logistical and ethical nightmare.
Agreed. In the way the OP addresses the issue, and with the dramatic extent of the measure proposed, no side in favour of it has ever formed in this thread.
Battery chickens, cows and pigs.
You didn't demonstrate why exactly they would be doomed without us. If they're set free, they'd survive easily. Conversely, any animal would starve if locked up, not just battery animals.
You didn't demonstrate why exactly they would be doomed without us. If they're set free, they'd survive easily. Conversely, any animal would starve if locked up, not just battery animals.
True, I said battery animals precisely because they'd be locked up. That, and since many of them are morbidly obese, they would be prime targets for predators even if they made it out.
In light of recent events in the United States and the U.K. perhaps this topic needs to be reconsidered. Of course, if the Earth deserves to be destroyed, Trump may be the best bet to get it accomplished. So really everything will work out for the best.
@EvilSpock This thread has been inactive for two years, so your post would count as a necro, unless you can add useful arguments which would further the discussion.
It has been mentioned before that no matter how badly you think of this world, no one could come up with a good reason to just destroy it instead of finding a solution. So I will do exactly what MoonFairy proposed two years ago: I will lock this thread, unless you can give me a proper reason for the destruction of the world/humanity.
If it's just for the destruction of humanity then there are plenty of reasons.
1) Humans have completely screwed up the natural world through pollution and mass killings of plant and animal life.
2) They've also subjugated many animal populations. Animals used as resources being the most notable, as they abuse and torture them almost all the time. (These would be animals such as cows and pigs.)
3) The level of harm and destruction is not limited to life outside of humanity as there is plenty of needless war, murder, and other acts of random violence.
Wouldn't it be better if mankind was wiped from existence? There would no longer be pain and suffering. Everyone always desires peace, would this not be a method to create that peace? (Please don't hate me for saying this.) P.S: I'm sorry if this was already covered in the thread.
Yes, I figure those are among the most frequent arguments put forward ^^
1) Humans have completely screwed up the natural world through pollution and mass killings of plant and animal life.
Yes, the human influence on nature, especially in the last century, has been rather damaging. But I can see two reasons not to destroy ourselves because of that.
1) Mass extinctions have happened before, and nature has always survived. In fact, mass extinctions are largely responsible for the diversity we see today; nature has never been entirely stable. The biggest harm we're doing is against ourselves. Instead of destroying ourselves, shouldn't we try to correct our behaviour?
2) Pollution is mostly coming from first world countries and big countries in development. There are tons of populations and tribes, however, who live in 'harmony' with nature. Wiping them out with us would be unfair, unethical, and criminal.
2) They've also subjugated many animal populations. Animals used as resources being the most notable, as they abuse and torture them almost all the time. (These would be animals such as cows and pigs.)
Domesticating animals without torture is possible though, and some animals profited from that in history. I don't see that as reason enough to wipe us out.
3) The level of harm and destruction is not limited to life outside of humanity as there is plenty of needless war, murder, and other acts of random violence.
Again, then let's correct this instead of deleting everything. You're saying that wiping out humanity would cause peace, but it wouldn't. There would no longer be any war, suffering, peace, or joy. Because there would be no human around anymore. If you want peace, you got to fight for it (by 'fight' I don't mean violence, but perseverance).
Edit: In a way, destroying humanity is a kind of Catch-22 situation. We cannot kill off all of humanity in one instant (even if it was technically possible, which it isn't). Consider nuclear plants: if abandoned, they would end up overheating and exploding; there would be Tchernobyls and Fukushimas all over the planet. Clearly this is not an option if our primary goal is to save the planet. This means we would need to gradually opt out of any technology that pollutes the planet. Once that is done, however, we would have no reason to wipe out humanity anymore.
Seems @Hahiha was faster than me x'D it's what I think too
And don't worry Ac no one will hate you for saying that, it's our world who lead to theses aggressive response, the key is to learn from the past, they were many wipe and nothing change..
So we just need to takes our responsibility and correcting our ancestors mistakes leading this world a better future for the children
Consider nuclear plants: if abandoned, they would end up overheating and exploding; there would be Tchernobyls and ***ushimas all over the planet.No. Present-day reactors are required to have automated controls to their coolant and containment. The only reactors I've heard of having automated fuel preparation and injection are small modular reactors that haven't yet been implemented anywhere, and those were low-output passively safe designs. Sure, everyone abruptly ceasing to exist in the middle of a crucial operation would be liable to end in disaster, but that, as you stated, is not really possible.
This means we would need to gradually opt out of any technology that pollutes the planet. Once that is done, however, we would have no reason to wipe out humanity anymore.Really, the only viable (not likely, just viable) way for humans to go extinct without causing more rapid and overwhelming destruction than staying alive is by just agreeing to stop all effort to continue the species, in which case, most industrial scale technology would become redundant as the population declines. The reason remains, however, as having everyone's descendants for the rest of the forseeable future also agree to this change of priorities is beyond any realm of possibility.
1) Mass extinctions have happened before, and nature has always survived. In fact, mass extinctions are largely responsible for the diversity we see today; nature has never been entirely stable. The biggest harm we're doing is against ourselves. Instead of destroying ourselves, shouldn't we try to correct our behaviour?
If someone went to your home and destroyed it because they needed resources, that simply wouldn't be "okay". If someone was murdered for no reason, there would be an uproar. So why is it that whenever these things happen in nature, because of humans, there's never that much thought put into them? It's true that nature may not be stable, but I don't believe that it should be acceptable to kill animals as a sport or only use some of what could be taken from the body. If it's fine for extinctions to happen for almost no reason, then why don't we just grab a shotgun and start shooting everything we see? :/
As for attempting to correct our behavior, we've been trying for at least a century. There has been, and always will be, the selfish, violent, and even narcissistic people. It's impossible for everyone to change for the better and the ones who don't will always create the same problems that exist today.
2) Pollution is mostly coming from first world countries and big countries in development. There are tons of populations and tribes, however, who live in 'harmony' with nature. Wiping them out with us would be unfair, unethical, and criminal.
Do countries not always try to improve their technology and ease of living? Given time, more and more countries will begin developing into the same countries that cause pollution today. We may not need to "destroy" everyone, just the ones who are disregarding, and creating, the problems at hand. If it's still for the destruction of 100% of humanity, though it may be unfair, sacrifices have to be made when it's for the greater good.
Domesticating animals without torture is possible though, and some animals profited from that in history. I don't see that as reason enough to wipe us out.
Regardless of whether it's possible or not, it matters with how often it was/is done. It would also depend on exactly how many animals actually did profit from it. When it comes to animals used for food, they're constantly tortured and killed as though it was as simple as preparing a cup of tea.
You're saying that wiping out humanity would cause peace, but it wouldn't. There would no longer be any war, suffering, peace, or joy. Because there would be no human around anymore. If you want peace, you got to fight for it (by 'fight' I don't mean violence, but perseverance).
Peace is created when the factors that cause harm are eliminated. If there were no humans, there would technically be peace.
Thread is locked!