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?
That's why I previously said that society is the plague. Nice to see you share my opinion
Haha, sorry about that. Should have read more.
On a side note... who cares if there is punk rock or not? That wouldn't make the Earth any better or worse. Not only is it barely even affected by sound waves, but it really is around much more for our enjoyment, not for bettering the earth. I still think the Earth would just be different, not any better or worse.
I ment that as a play on the phrase "in my mind" snce it's not what I think, but what you guys think.
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.
So many movies do it, so why not me? Also since most of what we used to walk on was all living objects (before streets and sidewalks) why couldn't they coordinate? They do have thinking functions, but we don't know that the functions even do.
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...
Yup we're like a slower version of the strogg...(quake reference incase anyone wants to look em up)
anthropogenic, sorry
You made me look up the wrong word.
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.
But we always have pecking order, even when there's only two people, one is above the other. Communism dosen't really hep that much either, I actualy think they had some bright ideas, but the equal pay can be abused so easily so thats not the answer.
So many movies do it, so why not me? Also since most of what we used to walk on was all living objects (before streets and sidewalks) why couldn't they coordinate? They do have thinking functions, but we don't know that the functions even do.
What is "they", in this example? If you're thinking of organisms, you do realize we are organisms too and don't share a common consciousness with cats, grass and bacterias? Or else I think it'd be known.. anyways, there are a lot of influences on the level of organisms, species, ecosystems, and if a fine-tuned system gets out of balance, things like global warming can happen. But that doesn't mean there's a consciouness behind it, it can simply be out of cause and effect. If there was, that consciousness could certainly determine it's own answer to the threads question, and seeing as we are still here, it seems to tolerate us. If it didn't, it could do worse than just global warming, and might have started earlier.
You know what book you should read? The novel The Swarm, by Frank Schatzing. A good book that deals with a similar topic.
What is "they", in this example? If you're thinking of organisms, you do realize we are organisms too and don't share a common consciousness with cats, grass and bacterias?
I was thinking more along the lines of plants like in the happening. Or a new train of thought, is the reason WHY life started on this planet and not any other in our solar system, is that beautiful cause and effect. Like if we keep destroying forests and stuff, then the carbon in the air will cause global warming, which will then melt the glaciers, making an ice age and losing some carbon at the same time, until it defrosts from the carbon agian.
You know what book you should read? The novel The Swarm, by Frank Schatzing. A good book that deals with a similar topic.
Never heard of it till now, but it sounds interesting so I might give it a try.
I think it would be better without humans, because less deforestation, pollution, using up Earth's resources and endangering animals etc. Yet, if you were talking about humans just disappearing, many animals would rely on humans, such as dogs, who are given food by humans, wouldn't be as good as hunting. Unless you were talking about humans never evolving, then yes. Yes it would.
I think it would be better without humans, because less deforestation, pollution, using up Earth's resources and endangering animals etc.
I think if there were no humans, then resources wouldn't be considered resources, all of the stuff we discovered about the properties of materials would never be discovered, if would just be basic organisms carrying on about their lives not caring about that stuff.
I think if there were no humans, then resources wouldn't be considered resources, all of the stuff we discovered about the properties of materials would never be discovered, if would just be basic organisms carrying on about their lives not caring about that stuff.
That sounds as if the planet would be full of bacterias and dull if there were no humans. If there were no humans, there still would be a lot of complex organisms, not only 'basic' ones. And why should they care about the properties of inorganic stuff? They wouldn't be able to use it, and the properties are there whether we are here to find out or not. Plus, what we call ressources are things that we can use, other organisms have other ressources as well.
If we weren't there to say 'this is a ressource', there'd be no need to say that; and so it can't be a bad thing if it isn't said.
That sounds as if the planet would be full of bacterias and dull if there were no humans.
What i'm saying is that the animals would just carry on with their lives, and there would be no one to analyze the properties of things (actualy I bet bevers must analyze wood to know which are good and not rotten). What I'm saying is they wouldn't care, and there would be pretty much no discoveries, they already discovered all they need to survive and don't go beyond that.
If we weren't there to say 'this is a ressource', there'd be no need to say that; and so it can't be a bad thing if it isn't said.
But it is never even looked at if it isn't said that it's a resource.
What I'm saying is they wouldn't care, and there would be pretty much no discoveries, they already discovered all they need to survive and don't go beyond that.
All other species wouldn't care less than they do now. If we weren't there, there would be no thirst of knowledge to satisfy. What I mean is, it is only a good thing when assuming there is someone there who can learn, memorize and use it. When there's noone interested in doing so, why should it's lack make the planet worse?
But it is never even looked at if it isn't said that it's a resource.
It wouldn't be bad, It won't even effect that planet, but it just makes me sad that no one will try to figure it out if we weren't here. I like discovering new things and ideas, but I guess that's what makes me human.
