ForumsWEPRWould the Earth be better without humans?

158 36823
JohnGarell
offline
JohnGarell
1,747 posts
Peasant

The title. But I can't base a thread on just the title, because Mods and Admins can change it. OK, original title: Would the Earth be better without humans?

I say yes.

  • 158 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

are u one of them ?


nope, i will only annoy you
amon2006
offline
amon2006
29 posts
Nomad

_)) it is my first visit..to this place .actually i am first time in forum..but it is really god. .it is really pleasure to talk even with annnoying people_ )

Alpha791
offline
Alpha791
3,896 posts
Peasant

Well the Earth would revert to it's natural state without humans. All ecosystems would balance themselves out eventually and invasive species would no longer happen. We destroy the Earth with green house gases, oil spills and pollution. But if we left it nuclear power plants would degrade and let out dangerous radiation and in the short term the world would be less healthy but long term the world would be a more "green" place.

xAyjAy
offline
xAyjAy
4,710 posts
Blacksmith

i would say the world would be better without humans because humans destroy the planet. they make trash, let the nature shrink only to have a house, kill animals and dont know when to stop, destroy/kill themself and they can not live in peace (i say only one word: war).

sure, there are so many things to say humans could be a good "race" (love, innocence) but without humans animals had only their natural enemys and no one that can kill there entire race.

thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

i would say the world would be better without humans because humans destroy the planet. they make trash, let the nature shrink only to have a house, kill animals and dont know when to stop, destroy/kill themself and they can not live in peace (i say only one word: war).

sure, there are so many things to say humans could be a good "race" (love, innocence) but without humans animals had only their natural enemys and no one that can kill there entire race.

actually once human beings were their natural enemies too (subsistence hunting)
gaboloth
offline
gaboloth
1,612 posts
Peasant

Saying that the earth would be better without humans sounds a little like saying that being dead would better than suffering, because "good" has no universal value and it's a completely human concept. For us, external human viewers with human mind, the image of earth without humans is fantastic, but if humans disappeared there would be no mind that could make that reasonment anymore. Maybe animals would suffer less overall, even if I'm not certain about it since suffering looks like a big part of an animal's wildlife, but they would surely not have the thinking ability to confront it with a world inhabited by humans, to notice the difference and to be pleased by it.

Also the idea that without us earth would become Eden again is not really true. Death and suffering are a constant in every natural ecosystem, animals would still kill each other for survival, the ones born less strong than the others would still die before reproducing, and it's not impossible to imagine that another species will become strong of intelligent enough to consume their environment so much that it won't be able to sustain that species anymore like we are doing now. It's actually a common phenomenon in nature, people should stop to think that the human case is an abomination of nature.

gaboloth
offline
gaboloth
1,612 posts
Peasant

Well the Earth would revert to it's natural state without humans.

No, it's not like Earth was all nice and happy and then humans came from outer space to disturb its peace. Nature produced humans. We are a part of Earth's "natural state" too.
gamer66618
offline
gamer66618
274 posts
Nomad

The Earth is just a planet orbiting the sun. It does not have feelings and therefore it doesn't care whether we exist upon its surface or not. The planet wouldn't be completely destroyed if we weren't on it. But seeing as it is otherwise a pointless rock with an atmosphere with some gases on it then that makes us the most important thing about it. However the greenhouse gases that we are adding to the atmosphere is causing the global climate to rise and therefore I believe that the planet would be a more hospitable place to live if we were not on it. But there would no one on it and therefore its hospitability would be irrelevent. So I see that your question is redundant...

Pois0nArr0w
offline
Pois0nArr0w
2,053 posts
Nomad

You owe your current existence to chemical reactions that occurred on this &quotointless rock", gamer. Try a little less ignorance and a little more understanding.

CabzIndustries
offline
CabzIndustries
35 posts
Nomad

I don't think there it would matter if there were no humans. Its our lives.

devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

no one that can kill there entire race.


Animals can certainly push each other to extinction. And there are other things besides humans that could hurt a species. Dinosaurs anyone? And animals adapt to surroundings that constantly change, even without humans. So eventually, species would disappear and be replaced by others.

But the fact is, yes the Earth would be in better shape without humans on it. There is no disputing that. The evidence of this is all around us.
ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,434 posts
Nomad

Well I'm certainly glad someone brought this thread back, it was one of my personal favorites.

On Topic:

Well, Anti-Human posts. Hm. *cracks knuckles*

Let's start with Mr. xAyjAy.

i would say the world would be better without humans because humans destroy the planet. they make trash, let the nature shrink only to have a house, kill animals and dont know when to stop, destroy/kill themself and they can not live in peace (i say only one word: war).


I get the trash part, but it's just a waste byproduct, all animals make it. When they decompose, when they deposit feces, it's all waste or "Trash" as you so romantically put it.

And what's with this "for only a house" business? Orangutans rip branches off of trees to make little hovels for themselves, all animals shrink nature to make shelter, it's a necessity. And this issue of humans invading other animal's space is just another byproduct of our own overpopulation that simply cannot be handled until we achieve extraterrestrial status as a species. It's just out of our hands, and would happen with pretty much ANY being that grew to human-like intelligence.

"Kill animals and don't know when to stop" is a bit old-fashioned. Did the crazy monarchs want all those Passenger Pigeon feathers and Dodo... eh... whatevers? Yes, it was a luxury and nowadays, humans have become pretty good with the whole hunting thing, with regulated hunting seasons and harsh repercussions for not following out the laws of The Hunt.

War eh? Think humans are the only species who can't stand each other?

ahem.

but without humans animals had only their natural enemys and no one that can kill there entire race.


Humans ARE natural enemies, and WERE ONCE barely scraping by as a species! You think a human has any chance against a Cave Bear one-on-one? It was once humans began to craft tools to more effectively live in packs and exist in one spot and be able to destroy any threat that came at them did they start to dominate the food chain.

And yes, it has happened where an entire species of animal has gone extinct because of another (I'm not talking about invasive species). It's called Evolution. Species X gathers a LOT more grubs than Species Z, and causes Species Z to starve and die out due to its obsolete status. It's happened before humans, and it's probably happening in some remote corner of the world human's aren't even close to right now.


But the fact is, yes the Earth would be in better shape without humans on it.


Relative to what? Before humans? Let's go a little before humans, ah, the world is molten and the water is poisonous because of all the iron! Totally better without humans though! Wait, that beaver just cut down a tree, just like a human! It's harming nature! Get rid of the beavers!

And now that Chimpanzee is using tools to totally wipe out that termite mound! Get rid of the Chimps!

Earth changes. Sure, humans caused this change, but that just means that other species have to adapt. The Dinosaurs couldn't adapt to meet the necessities of that post-asteroid earth, but other species could! It's a natural process, and humans are just one of the factors pushing this certain change. If the polar bears can't adapt, sucks for them. They should have. A species that doesn't push itself towards perfection goes against nature, is therefore an abomination of creation and must be destroyed. It's the basic law of Life, to strive for perfection and to adapt. Again, humans are just another small tidbit in the timeframe.

-Chillz thinks humans are NOT all bad
xAyjAy
offline
xAyjAy
4,710 posts
Blacksmith

@ChillzMaster i tipped only what i thought, youre right with what you tipped.

animals produce only feces, but are they producting something like atomic waste?

if an animal is hungry, it eats till its not more hungry. humans get more food than they need, throwing away whats not more fresh.

jl94
offline
jl94
25 posts
Nomad

What are you smoking,no

AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

What are you smoking,no


Well, I think that concludes it. Smoking makes you INSANE!

I just hope that someday (real real, soon) humans will stop trying to suck up all the resources that we no longer need and co-exist with nature because lets face it, citys are great social centres but the pollution made by our devices truly disrupts our peace.

I could do with some peace and less ignorant humans around to make stupid wise-cracks in the thinking that this will somehow bestow them with some kind of social status e.g. "So I see that your question is redundant..." and "What are you smoking,no"

So the short answer is, earth would be better with LESS humans.
Showing 136-150 of 158