ForumsWEPRWould the Earth be better without humans?

158 36819
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
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,487 posts
Blacksmith

in my opinion, the world probably won't have such nice cities, but the enviroment will still probably be the same due to the shifts in climate that happen every hundred thousand years or so. there will be another ice age no matter what we do because the earths cycle has been getting closer and farther from the sun for millions of years.

thingthingjack
offline
thingthingjack
43 posts
Nomad

i don't know. if i got a chance to go to another earth where humans never existed, then i'd like to see how different the planet would be

waterfish333
offline
waterfish333
52 posts
Nomad

Define please:
1.) Better = What exactly constitutes better?
2.) The Earth = Are you talking about the layered, giant rock that's orbiting the sun, because we really haven't made much of an impact on it. Or just on the surface? Or, maybe specifically only the biosphere.

Mainly I'm curious as to how you define what better means.

JohnGarell
offline
JohnGarell
1,747 posts
Peasant

Define please:
1.) Better = What exactly constitutes better?
2.) The Earth = Are you talking about the layered, giant rock that's orbiting the sun, because we really haven't made much of an impact on it. Or just on the surface? Or, maybe specifically only the biosphere.


1.) Do you think that this planet would be a better place if it were no humans on it from the beginning? I mean if you think that it would be a better place to live on and more species would enjoy the life more.

2.) I mean everything. Mostly everything from the layer to the atmosphere.

Mainly I'm curious as to how you define what better means.


Like compared to with or without humans.
ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,434 posts
Nomad

extinct animals would be unextinct


So, the dinosaurs would come back??? SQUEE!!
And what about that lizard that couldn't catch food as well as that lizard with the bacteria-teeth? He comes back too? Evolution and special progression is reversed?!? GOODY! =_=*

I'm not digging all the anti-humanism on this thread. Humans do some bad stuff to the environment, and yes, using fossil fuels is not the best way of turning on our lights, but its called progress. In a capitalistic-dominated human population, where supply-and-demand run the world, when the supply of fuel starts going down, the oil and gas companies are going to need to look for new supply to fit the growing demand. This means renewable sources, enabling these companies to never have to look for new supply ever again.

its (humans benefiting the earth) possible, but most likely won't happen due to the high amounts of greed that most humans have.


In the above scenario, the power of Greed would stop humans from using fuels that harm the environment. >8^)

I've seen posts that "Racism causes wars, wars hurt Earth" DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY MONKEY WARS HAPPEN IN A DAY??? I know "Monkey Wars" sounds hilarious, but in perspective, groups of animals fight other groups of animals every day.

And we continue...

the human is a parasite.


Elephants destroy trees with their tusks, as do beavers with their BITING POWER. nearly every living being is a parasite. The EARTH ITSELF is a parasite in perspective. What does it do? It feeds off of the energy given by the sun as the sun burns up its Hydrogen and slowly DIES. Imagine a vampire sitting below your corroded artery, slurping up your blood as you slowly die. Imagine the vampire as The Earth and the sun as you, and the energy it gives off from burning Hydrogen as the blood. We get a very similar, gruesome, scenario of parasite and provider.

Even if humans have messed up Earth, there's never a point of no return. Humans are smart, we can expand our reaches across the realms of existence. We can't use fuel for that, we'll need renewable resources. We can't destroy those planets either with pollutants, we're trying to find healthy living space for our growing population. I mean, you probably got food all over your first bib too, right?

And one last thing...

nobody would fill the earth, the sea and the air with poisonous substances/waste


Before humans, the Earth was inhabitable. It was filled with naturally-occurring pollutants and dangerous wastes. The sea was red with iron, the earth was molten-hot, it was, literally, "Hell on Earth". All without people. The galaxy's a weird place, a lot can happen.

-Chillz
angrymuffin
offline
angrymuffin
17 posts
Nomad

i think yes humans fit the definisin of parasit

BLINDsniper1
offline
BLINDsniper1
84 posts
Nomad

Would the earth be better? If you mean better as in animals aren't going extinct due to loss of habitats and poaching, then yes it definitely would be.

ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,434 posts
Nomad

animals aren't going extinct due to loss of habitats and poaching, then yes it definitely would be.


The amount of species made extinct by human actions is a microscopic fraction of the amount of species that became extinct through losing the battle of Survival of The Fittest, natural disasters, and extra-planetary disasters. I've seen this extinct excuse too many times. Animals go extinct, yes, and they've always gone extinct. Its not like animals just started dying out as soon as the first Homo Sapien picked up a stick and called it a spear.

-Chillz
Malechka
offline
Malechka
7 posts
Nomad

Yes, Earth would be much better without humans.

ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,434 posts
Nomad

Yes, Earth would be much better without humans.


i think yes humans fit the definisin of parasit


EXPLAIN! I mean, REALLY! I can't handle all these one sentence "Humans r evil" posts! GRAH!

-Chillz
Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

Yes, Earth would be much better without humans.

But what if the earth is evolving because of us instead of being hurt? Like what if they only surviving organisms should only be farm animals and cockroaches?
Omnihero10
offline
Omnihero10
2,515 posts
Nomad

read my post on page 7

ComradeWolf
offline
ComradeWolf
358 posts
Nomad

Well, we wouldn't know if it would be better if we aren't there now would we.


The thing is, guessing purely on an estimation of environmental stability, probably not much a difference.

Sure, humans are major pollutants but then again some other species may evolve to have been our replacement. Who knows.

It doesn't matter that much anyways, since we wouldn't be there to enjoy it. As for other life, life is merely an accident of chemicals. Life is merely there because it managed to form and adapt.

ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,434 posts
Nomad

But what if the earth is evolving because of us instead of being hurt? Like what if they only surviving organisms should only be farm animals and cockroaches?


that LITERALLY makes no sense. the earth NEEDS diversity in organic life, and if the only organisms alive are ANIMALS, and not any PLANT organisms, then the entire structure of the food chain would have collapsed quickly.

-Chillz
Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

that LITERALLY makes no sense. the earth NEEDS diversity in organic life, and if the only organisms alive are ANIMALS, and not any PLANT organisms, then the entire structure of the food chain would have collapsed quickly.

Why do you assums it NEEDS veriety? Also I forgot to add that we used geneticly altered plants for food also. And the mutated cockroaches could feed on humans and vice versa if you want a food chain.
Showing 76-90 of 158