is this world better off without humans?

[cladking]

The only thing that matters is human life; all human life including people who have already died and those not yet born.

 

To know ourselves we must know our past and there's no need to know ourselves if there's no future.

 

This isn't to say that we should be inhumane to other life forms because such behavior diminishes what it means to be human.

[SamBridge]

If humans weren't around there would just be another species in it's place eventually, perhaps asking the same question, perhaps not.

Edited January 16, 2013 by SamBridge

[N S]

Yes, the world -- if not the entirety of all the universes -- would be better off without humans. Humans are the stinkiest creatures to pollute reality. Human kakaa stinks worse than non-human kakaa. In addition, humans are the only creatures capable of sadism. When a non-human animal attacks something/someone, it does so out of fear or the need to eat. Only humans attacks other living things [animals and other humans] just for sick pleasure. Humans are the only animals who are monstrous enough to harm others just for the sake of causing harm. Humans are the only organisms capable of being evil.

That seems to be pretty much right, and maybe, all this is just another side of consciousness (you can observe chimpanzees too, they also show signs of human-like consciousness and they are not behind humans in such sick feelings).

[SamBridge]

You guys don't really seem to understand how nature works, most animals are worse, you think most animals want to be friends? Cause they don't, go watch a nature documentary or just get out of your house and into reality, most animal species are definitely worse than developed human civilizations, many are extremely racist, selfish, greedy, or just kill things for fun, like lions or tigers and even kill offspring of their own species which is definitely not better than more primitive human civilizations. Humans at least have the sense to say "we can do better than that one day" and in some places are making progress. This isn't to say all animals are bad, especially since "bad" is an arbitrary term, but things are a lot uglier outside of civilized society.

Some selfish animals aren't going to protect the Earth from giant meteors, it will be advanced technology that does, forged by generations of humans working together.

Edited January 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[N S]

 

SamBridge, 21 Jan 2013 - 21:55, said:

Cause

they don't, go watch a nature documentary or just get out of your house

and into reality, most animal species are definitely worse than

developed human civilizations, many are extremely racist, selfish,

greedy, or just kill things for fun, like lions or tigers and even kill

offspring of their own species which is definitely not better than

more primitive human civilizations.

Quite...I think you are right. But I would not agree less that they do any such thing for sick pleasure. Animals do eat their offspring and can be much grosser than humans, but their actions are backed only by survival instinct - hunger, safety/defense, control over territory, etc.

Edited January 24, 2013 by N S

[SamBridge]

Quite...I think you are right. But I would not agree less that they do any such thing for sick pleasure. Animals do eat their offspring and can be much grosser than humans, but their actions are backed only by survival instinct - hunger, safety/defense, control over territory, etc.

Well the "eating for pleasure" thing isn't very common about the total animal kingdoms, it's mostly found mammal kingdom, otherwise you are right they would do it out of instinct or to survive.

Edited January 24, 2013 by SamBridge

[LaurieAG]

I have always thought that the first big tick, when the theoretical BB universe started going from a stable singular state to an expanding state, is conceptually like turning on a switch or pulling a trigger.

 

While [math]t_0+\epsilon[/math] works but [math]t_0[/math] doesn't, there are implications for the gap.

 

So I wonder if there is a critical threshold, that we may be getting closer to experimentally, that we should possibly be accutely aware of. That is of course only a concern if the BB theory is valid (and nobody seems the least bit concerned).

 

At least the end would be mercifully quick

[SamBridge]

I have always thought that the first big tick, when the theoretical BB universe started going from a stable singular state to an expanding state, is conceptually like turning on a switch or pulling a trigger.

 

While [math]t_0+\epsilon[/math] works but [math]t_0[/math] doesn't, there are implications for the gap.

 

So I wonder if there is a critical threshold, that we may be getting closer to experimentally, that we should possibly be accutely aware of. That is of course only a concern if the BB theory is valid (and nobody seems the least bit concerned).

 

At least the end would be mercifully quick

Not sure what you're saying or how it pertains to the topic.

[Ben L-Bo]

Can I just answer simply yes, and use this as my evidence.

 

 

Just kidding, Humans are great, sometimes.

 

Thanks,

Ben

[Mr Monkeybat]

There is no universal good. What is good for the lion is evil for the antelope. So "would the Earth be better off" is a meaningless question better off for who? Humans disappearing would be good for some animals bad for some other like rats, and domesticated cat dogs etc. Allot of native species in the world would disappear. Without humans protecting them from introduced species. I certainly don't want to cease to exist or kill my decendents so I would not consider a without people better.

[SamBridge]

There is no universal good. What is good for the lion is evil for the antelope. So "would the Earth be better off" is a meaningless question better off for who? Humans disappearing would be good for some animals bad for some other like rats, and domesticated cat dogs etc. Allot of native species in the world would disappear. Without humans protecting them from introduced species. I certainly don't want to cease to exist or kill my decendents so I would not consider a without people better.

That's not entirely true, humans have caused the extinction of quite a few species, probably more than it has saved. Good is a relative term, but I think what the context is if the world would ultimately flourish or diminish because of humans.

Edited February 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[ralfy]

It will probably not matter as the world will continue existing with or without human beings.

[Phi for All]

That's not entirely true, humans have caused the extinction of quite a few species, probably more than it has saved. Good is a relative term, but I think what the context is if the world would ultimately flourish or diminish because of humans.

 

We're certainly not the only creatures who've caused the extinction of other species, but we're the only ones I know of who actively work to preserve other species as well. Would any other species hesitate to kill and eat its favorite prey if it knew the prey was one of the last few of its kind?

 

I think part of our problem is not thinking of ourselves as part of nature, that human civilization is evil because it can negatively impact other species. We are part of nature, so whatever we do we is natural even if it's not the smartest thing to do in the long run. If there is anything we can do better than any other species, it's thinking in long-range terms, and we just don't do enough of that lately. If we can start exercising that part of our intellect more, then I would definitely say this world is better off having us here.

[Moontanman]

That's not entirely true, humans have caused the extinction of quite a few species, probably more than it has saved. Good is a relative term, but I think what the context is if the world would ultimately flourish or diminish because of humans.

 

 

Ultimately the world is not going to flourish no matter what humans do. But humans have the capability to spread Gaea's complex life forms to other planets... sooo humans are the reproductive organs of Gaea... that means humans are... wait for it...

[SamBridge]

We're certainly not the only creatures who've caused the extinction of other species, but we're the only ones I know of who actively work to preserve other species as well. Would any other species hesitate to kill and eat its favorite prey if it knew the prey was one of the last few of its kind?

I think on an individual basis if other animals actually could comprehend that action, then some actually would make the choice to not kill it, there's humans who want to save other species, but there's also humans that want to do things like kill off all animals that directly threaten humans as well, humans aren't particularly morally better than any other species in my opinion, but in general have a greater emotional and cognitive capacity than many which allows for a greater range of views and interpretations. I mean you can pretty much directly compare the different types of intelligence of some animals directly to ratios of human intelligence, usually it is to some lesser degree, but I think/know there are kids maybe even less than 8 who if presented with that choice would probably chose to save something rather than kill it off and making it extinct, so seeing as how even a kid could make that choice, I think if different animals could actually stop to think and comprehended the magnitude of killing something off and making it extinct some would make the choice not to. I'm not saying all of them would, I'm not saying all humans would either, of course there are as you know companies that don't particularly care about preserving the environment in delicate ecosystems such as rainforests.

 

I think part of our problem is not thinking of ourselves as part of nature, that human civilization is evil because it can negatively impact other species. We are part of nature, so whatever we do we is natural even if it's not the smartest thing to do in the long run. If there is anything we can do better than any other species, it's thinking in long-range terms, and we just don't do enough of that lately. If we can start exercising that part of our intellect more, then I would definitely say this world is better off having us here.

In general I also share that viewpoint that the human race isn't really disconnected from nature, as there are of course many irrational or emotionally based actions that humans may take. Anything any natural thing in the universe does is natural, but so what? What's the point? It's natural for babies to die, should we just go around killing babies? It's natural for meteors to hit planets, should we just let a giant meteor hit Earth without doing anything about it? The notion that we should or shouldn't do something be because it's "natural" doesn't mean anything and obviously with all of our technology that notion hasn't stopped us anyway. I'm not saying you directly said that, but just to get that out there.

I would think though, that even if the human race went extinct that another species would just take it's place, and eventually make most if not all of the same mistakes. As you probably know, Earth won't survive forever, at least not on it's own, if the human race get's wiped out, even if there was a superior race, there may not be enough time left for it to develop to the point where it could save a planet and terraform others. In as little as 4 billion years we'll collide with the Andromeda galaxy, there's a 50% chance the planet will get destroyed as a result due to being flung into near the center of the galaxy into what will become a bath of gamma radiation, or outward may survive by getting flung outward into the depths of space, but even before surviving that 4 billion year mark Earth will most certainly get threatened by at least 1 devastating asteroid, if the human race get's wiped out by then, that's it, because Earth really can't afford to keep starting over again and again and again, there just isn't an infinite amount of time for a race intelligent enough to make a difference to develop. I suppose there's a chance there's life elsewhere in the universe, but we haven't found any, it's better to try and make the best of what we've got.

Edited February 15, 2013 by SamBridge

[menageriemanor]

cladking: Seriously? Seriously? I'm new here. Tell me that passes for a dubious sense of humour?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I've gone ahead and split a number of posts from here into their very own thread, so let's keep the bits about quack medicine out of this thread and stay on topic.