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?
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.
Without species OTHER than farm animals, the ecosystem of the earth would collapse. And cockroaches aren't the ONLY species that eats dead meat.
What I'm tying to do is put a new perspective in here other than "Humans are polluters!" or "Humans are a virus to Earth!"
by taking it to the extreme and assuming Humans should just "Kill! Everything! Now!"?
by taking it to the extreme and assuming Humans should just "Kill! Everything! Now!"?
Not EVERYTHING NOW, i'm saying the polution will kill out everything but geneticly modified plants and cockroaches, not that we are actualy hunting the poor animals.
Nature will always be a step ahead of humankind. Sure, numerous species die but animals will adapt to the conditions. New life will develop. Life can live under any conditions as long as it has some basic supplements, nutrition or various elements to make organs and cell production/ maintenance possible, a way for it to respirate via gasses, and a means of creating offspring, either by sexual or asexual means.
And life has been proven to been able to exist in any sort of conditions. From the highly toxic environments of chemical sludge pools to the deep crushing depths of hydro thermal vents of the oceans abyss, to the thin air altitudes up high. Life will thrive as long as 3 basic things are met, and they aren't hard to find. Life could even live in temperatures that are considered lethal to us.
Yes, it would be. Human race just kills, destroys... etc. But the Earth has so good life terms so if there wouldn't be humans, something other would evolve into selfish creatures.
Well.. Somewhat49, if because of us there would be mainly farm animals or crops left, that wouldn't have much to do with evolution, that'd be the consequences of anthropomorphic influence. Now, ChillzMaster, diversity has many positive effects and without it, many ecosystems may collapse, but it isn't needed for nature to survive; earth has already been through some big mass extinctions, and has always recovered.
I've heard scientists argue whether diversity is really objectively better or not; of course it's good for keeping the ecosystems we currently have alive. But in nature, when a niche becomes free because one or several species went extinct, it isn't necessarily bad, it will just be replaced by other species.
Flag Well.. Somewhat49, if because of us there would be mainly farm animals or crops left, that wouldn't have much to do with evolution, that'd be the consequences of anthropomorphic influence. Now, ChillzMaster, diversity has many positive effects and without it, many ecosystems may collapse, but it isn't needed for nature to survive; earth has already been through some big mass extinctions, and has always recovered. I've heard scientists argue whether diversity is really objectively better or not; of course it's good for keeping the ecosystems we currently have alive. But in nature, when a niche becomes free because one or several species went extinct, it isn't necessarily bad, it will just be replaced by other species.
Well we would evolve into a civilization which only eats certain things and lives in a different way then our ancestors. We would geneticly modify the plants and animals as a way of fast evolution almost. But yes we would be effecting the planet, but maybe we were hardwired all along to do this, like termites living in and eating wood, we were made to modify the world.
probably... as mr smith says in the matrix, we are a virus, and i think we don't come from this planet, we need to build cities and houses and can't survive for a lifetimme in the wild when every other animal on the planet can!!!
probably... as mr smith says in the matrix, we are a virus, and i think we don't come from this planet, we need to build cities and houses and can't survive for a lifetimme in the wild when every other animal on the planet can!!!
Lawl...
If you had grown up in the 'wild', you'd be accustomed too. Best example that it is possible, are indigenous tribes (and basically all our hominid ancestors). And they can live perfectly sustainably, so if anything, modern society is the plague, not humankind as such.
If you had grown up in the 'wild', you'd be accustomed too. Best example that it is possible, are indigenous tribes (and basically all our hominid ancestors). And they can live perfectly sustainably, so if anything, modern society is the plague, not humankind as such.
Maybe it's the fact that we have too many people and not modern society. The reason WHY we started to mass produce things WAS to sell more products to the growing mass. The mass is still growing and the Earth in your minds, is getting worse and worse. Maybe global warming is a kindof self defence mechanism for overpopulation...(last sentence is complete speculation withought fact, treat it as that)
Maybe it's the fact that we have too many people and not modern society.
I'm sure there'd be possibilities to handle our population better than now, much better. But yes, our number is a problem...
The reason WHY we started to mass produce things WAS to sell more products to the growing mass.
And that's because some just won't accept that continuous growth isn't the best thing ever. They prolly never saw a bacterial growth curve in a medium...
The mass is still growing and the Earth in your minds, is getting worse and worse.
Whaddaya mean, 'the earth in your minds'?
Maybe global warming is a kindof self defence mechanism for overpopulation...(last sentence is complete speculation withought fact, treat it as that)
For it to be a defence mechanism, there has to be a will behind it. You putting a will behind nature? It's just a consequence of anthropomorphic effects along with the 'regular' development of climate.
Actually, if you look into it, the Earth is not really over populated. You just seem to think so. If by 'overpopulated' you mean to say that the sheer number of us is causing things like global warming, then I suppose you're right. In truth, though, there's a lot of living room available. People just start to think that we're super congested due to our love of urbanization, and the practical idea behind starving people is 'Well if there were less starving people there would be more food to go around!'
If you look into it, you'll find a lot of sources telling you that there is enough food and land to support just about everyone. The only reason this fails to happen is due to the distribution of wealth, not due to the number of people around. Go back 200 years and I'm sure you will still find poor people, even with less than 1/7th of the human population around.
