Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Earth would be far better off without humans.

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    Thats not true that British people live to 100 thats the exception not the rule. Humans are viruses with shoes. And trees do not consume nearly as much oxygen as they produce. Some people need to die there is too many people on this planet and it is upsetting the natural balance. Nature matters more than people. One one hand you have one destructive hateful species named humans on the other Nature which is all life I am obviously going to choose nature.
    I said "often" live to 100. British people living to 100 is no more the exception than hunter gatherers living to 80. And do you hate the I Kung?

    A tree will produce oxygen while growing, but that isn't unique to them; all autotrophs do that. When you take our agriculture into account humanity produces a lot of oxygen; we only consume more oxygen b burning fossil fuels (and soon that will be replaced by nuclear power).

    Saving the "natural balance" is unimportant compared to saving human lives.

    Humanity is life's only hope for survival. And all life behaves lik humans; if you hate your own species you must necessarily hate all others for all other species are more selfish.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Of course it would. Humans disturb the natural balance of the earth. Every animal causes a certain degree of damage, the amount of damage we cause is far too high and greatly outweighs the positives we bring.
    • Thread Starter
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    I said "often" live to 100. British people living to 100 is no more the exception than hunter gatherers living to 80. And do you hate the I Kung?

    A tree will produce oxygen while growing, but that isn't unique to them; all autotrophs do that. When you take our agriculture into account humanity produces a lot of oxygen; we only consume more oxygen b burning fossil fuels (and soon that will be replaced by nuclear power).

    Saving the "natural balance" is unimportant compared to saving human lives.

    Humanity is life's only hope for survival. And all life behaves lik humans; if you hate your own species you must necessarily hate all others for all other species are more selfish.
    No I don't hate the I Kung unlike most people they don't destroy the planet but instead live at one in harmony with it.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    I said "often" live to 100. British people living to 100 is no more the exception than hunter gatherers living to 80. And do you hate the I Kung?

    A tree will produce oxygen while growing, but that isn't unique to them; all autotrophs do that. When you take our agriculture into account humanity produces a lot of oxygen; we only consume more oxygen b burning fossil fuels (and soon that will be replaced by nuclear power).

    Saving the "natural balance" is unimportant compared to saving human lives.

    Humanity is life's only hope for survival. And all life behaves lik humans; if you hate your own species you must necessarily hate all others for all other species are more selfish.
    I've rarely read such a crazy post.
    ...there's just...so much wrong about it.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    One day, our worth will be seen.

    We will prevent the Earth being completely destroyed by some natural phenomenon, or manage to cross space to colonise other planets, so allowing the rest of Earth's inhabitants to live on long after Earth is dead.

    Either that or we'll blow ourselves up. One or the other.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    This. 'Better' according to whom? Animals couldn't care less and the planet isn't sentient.
    You seriously have no appreciation for the earth and all it's wildlife?

    How depressing.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EffieFlowers)
    I've rarely read such a crazy post.
    ...there's just...so much wrong about it.
    Elaborate. Am I wrong when I say that we're it not for our use of hydrocarbons we would be net producers of oxygen?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's just humans that destroy Earth, it's just overpopulation.

    Back when we lived in tribes, we used what we needed and understood the importance of the planet. Tribes still have their issues though and sometimes fight, but in the past they used such small weapons.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Wait a minute.. If humans are bad for the planet.. Does this mean that mass murder is good? :zomg:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ajibola)
    It would be a bit boring don't you think?
    Not at all.

    I can't get over the complete disregard for the earth and it's ecosystems in this thread. You would think that with TSR supposedly being a forum for academics, people would have more appreciation for the earths wildlife.

    Some of you TSRians are so emotionless.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    Does anyone else think the Earth would be far better off without humans? No other species does horrible things such as industrialising no other species build hideous nuclear weapons. No other species follow religions the majority of which are hateful monotheistic religions more than polytheistic. I think its fair to say humanity is a virus with shoes.
    How do you know that no other species follows religions? Have you asked them?
    Their religions might be different from ourrs but still religions. An octopus might think that a piece of coral holds special religious significance.

    If you believe in God then we're not seen as a virus by Him although, following the Adam and Eve and Jesus crucifixtion situations, we are seen as 'there but by the grace of God go we', our life little more than an opportunity to say 'I'm sorry' to get in to heaven and anything else is a bonus. A brilliantly lazy, carnal, bonus it seems to many people.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Guys, the earth 'owns' us. If it ever wanted to get rid of us, it could easily like such could happen quite soon... You know Yellowstone national park? That is a super volcano and it erupts every 60,000 years on average. The last eruption was 70,000 years ago... And lots of activity has been seen there recently
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EffieFlowers)
    Not at all.

    I can't get over the complete disregard for the earth and it's ecosystems in this thread. You would think that with TSR supposedly being a forum for academics, people would have more appreciation for the earths wildlife.

    Some of you TSRians are so emotionless.
    Putting people before plants is not being emotionless; on the contrary I think it takes a heartless bastard to say that some people need to die of malaria.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The earth is not animate in terms of conscience ergo the planet has no stake in what would be better or worse for it. It's not important in those terms.

    Would the planet last longer without homo-sapiens? That is the correct question; and the answer is subjective.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    Craig_D
    I think you could make an argument that the animal kingdom would be better off without humans, but then it would also be better off without mosquitoes. I don't think we really have to justify our existence; nature is one giant fight for survival, we're just a lot more capable of doing massive damage than sharks, bears and crocodiles. At least however we are the one animal that is capable of guilt and a conscience about any damage that we do; sharks chomp through surfers and don't (and can't) really give a crap.


    Really you are that arrogant no other animals have a conscience? Most animals have a conscience and yes we do have to justify our existence. All other animals lived in a balance in which not one species got too big or too small, until parasetic humans came along.
    As a matter of interest why do you see humans as being parasitic? All we are doing (or did anyway back in the days of stone age hunters and so on), like every other animal in the world, is using the abilities we have evolved with to our advantage, in order to ensure our survival. While some animals might have been gifted with camouflage, long legs etc, what we have is our big brains, which allow us to come up with much more innovative or advanced solutions to problems than any animal could - we can make advanced tools for example (granted some animals can make simple tools too - orangutans for instance) and if necessary change the environment radically to suit our needs, farming being one of the biggest and best examples. How is that parasitic?

    If people didn't invent such solutions to problems (the problem solved by farming being that the human population would be growing too large to be sustained by what was available, and also possibly that they were always rubbing against one another when following the food) then the human population would never have become as large as it is, because the earth simply would not be able to sustain it. I agree with you however, that in more modern times we've done some unsavoury things to the planet, but I just cant understand the argument that humans are parasites living off the earth when we are not that different from other animals...
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    Elaborate. Am I wrong when I say that we're it not for our use of hydrocarbons we would be net producers of oxygen?
    Every sentence just seems nonsensical to me. Perhaps if you were to elaborate on your points a bit I could make more sense of it. Especially the last few paragraphs.

    And no you are not wrong, but that is completely irrelevant. Even if we were to increase our use of alternative resources such as nuclear, we'd still be heavily reliant on hydrocarbons for manufacturing, industry and still for energy. We've created our civilizations based on a reliance on hydrocarbons. It's practically impossible to undo the massive dependence we have on them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EffieFlowers)
    Every sentence just seems nonsensical to me. Perhaps if you were to elaborate on your points a bit I could make more sense of it. Especially the last few paragraphs.

    And no you are not wrong, but that is completely irrelevant. Even if we were to increase our use of alternative resources such as nuclear, we'd still be heavily reliant on hydrocarbons for manufacturing, industry and still for energy. We've created our civilizations based on a reliance on hydrocarbons. It's practically impossible to undo the massive dependence we have on them.
    Does the sentence "British people living to 100 is no more exceptional than hunter-gatherers living to 80" seem nonsensical to you? What about "Saving the natural balance is unimportant compared to saving human lives"?

    And using hydrocarbons for manufacturing doesn't consume oxygen if the energy used comes from nuclear power.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blu tack)
    What is 'better' for the Earth though? The only things you could come up with are framed in human terms- less pollution or more forests or whatever. Why would that matter for the Earth?
    Who knows what's better for the Earth? I don't... but that still doesn't change the fact that we as humans could still be giving the Earth a worse time than if we were not there. I don't agree with the statement made in the OP. I was simply pointing out how you're mistaking exclusivity with the two statements made.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    earth was made for mankind WTF is ur point. I would suggest for those who don't think there fit to live on this earth,go and hang yourselves then
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astronomical)
    Why? Why would you value any other lesser species more highly than human beings? I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely curious.
    I don't value other species more highly than humans. I simply don't give other species the significantly lower value that most humans do. I'd probably save a human instead of an animal in a 'burning house' situation (although picking who to save comes down to more than species membership), but that doesn't mean I think that we should eat, experiment on and otherwise use other species for our own ends. And it also means that I take into consideration the impact that humans have on other species in terms of our use of the environment and its resources.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 5, 2013
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.