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?
So, for you, evolution is barely 'rimate gets intelligent and becomes human'?
Humans not being around anymore is not a condition for other primates to become more intelligent.
For me evolution doesn't exist. It's just a thought i had. I mean the argument stating that we evolved or whatever, humans didn't need to be around to create said condition - so in theory, if we were gone, wouldn't it just do it's thing all over again.
& If it did, humans could be prone to the same mistakes.
I don't know - to me the world needs us. Not as many of us as there are, but it needs some human TLC :P
For me evolution doesn't exist. It's just a thought i had. I mean the argument stating that we evolved or whatever, humans didn't need to be around to create said condition - so in theory, if we were gone, wouldn't it just do it's thing all over again.
It could happen again, but it doesn't have to, because the human evolution isn't something that is bluescripted somewhere; it just happened. And I doubt that if other primates get as sentient as we are, they would look like us. There would be quite a few differences, dependent on where/what species/when and under which conditions/etc. It all really depends on what is being selected in primates, and for 'it to happen again', you would need to have a selective pressure on intelligence for the primates.
I don't know - to me the world needs us. Not as many of us as there are, but it needs some human TLC :P
I'll say again - look at Tchernobyl, the banned and radiated zone. Since humans are gone, nature took over again. We didn't help. And I doubt that we are here to help nature out of a major crisis or something; we have an impact on our environment but in the end we're helpless victims of natures moods.
No one said that; not me at least. But the thread's question is explicitely, 'would the earth be better without humans?'. Try answering that negatively with your intelligence argument.
If the answer was simple, we'd have it by now. Personally, I think Earth doesn't give a crap if humans walk it or not.
Humans were given the gift of choice. I'm not saying we were meant to destroy Earth, I'm just saying that that path was available to us, and we had the capacity to take that path.
i
don't think any human ever had the choise of: destroy earth or not destroy earth. it just happend to go this way. and now we know that nature gets destroyed we should try to change that. now we have the choise: keep destroying earth or change and stop destroying earth.
don't think any human ever had the choise of: destroy earth or not destroy earth. it just happend to go this way. and now we know that nature gets destroyed we should try to change that. now we have the choise: keep destroying earth or change and stop destroying earth.
I don't think that we are destroying the earth, we are only changing the environment in a negative way for us. There will always be life on the earth (as long as we don't nuke the **** out of it).
Earth actually WOULD be better off in SOME areas, but in others, Earth would be worse off. As bwtwilight24 said earlier,we could let every thing rot and have nature do it's thing, but I have a contradiction...while we let this happen the animal population would spike, possibly causing a over-habitation, therefore making US at high risk for extinction. Which again brings us to the question: Would the World REALLY be better without us? It's quite simply a double-helix.
As bwtwilight24 said earlier,we could let every thing rot and have nature do it's thing, but I have a contradiction...while we let this happen the animal population would spike, possibly causing a over-habitation, therefore making US at high risk for extinction.
Not necessarily, the populations could also find a balance after a few ups and downs, simply forming new ecosystems.
Anyway, you could take it philosophically and say that diversity isn't objectively better than simple ecosystems (it does have a positive effect on a lot of things, but strictly speaking, that doesn't matter). So even if 30% of all species in the US would go extinct, who is to say this is necessarily a bad thing?
But also helping it from what natural disaster destroyed too.
Natural disaster? We do repair the buildings an air-vortex destroy, yes. But if we shouldn't have existed, there wouldn't have been any buildings who got destroyed by any vortexes.
See it in this way, that a vortex maybe destroy a factory who destroyed the climate. Then, natural disasters just help the nature.
I don't think that we are destroying the earth, we are only changing the environment in a negative way for us.
Not so big difference. That was what I meant.
There will always be life on the earth (as long as we don't nuke the **** out of it).
As for is the disappearance of humans would result in another sentient sapient species on par to us to arise it's possible. The only real advantage here would be a free ecological niche. Though given our roll it could even be filled with several specialized species without our traits.
Yes: We are preserving already endangered animals, breeding new creatures and plants, discovering more of this universe ( therefore getting closer to any sense of time travel, wormholes, new worlds with life, ect.) If we can ,somehow, discover time travel, maybe we'd be able to bring back endangered species.
No: We have killed and endangered so many species! We kill each other in war, we use necluar power, and who knows when we'll have a nuke war! We kill the earth, we ruin lives, continue to fight, and for what? Cars, war, and just to prove we're right? War does NOT improve anything.
Like my quote, "War does not prove who is right, war prove who is left."
War is clearly unneeded! We are killing earth MORE then we're helping it.
