Would the world be better without mankind?

Six-and-half billion - and rising. That is how many humans crowd our Planet Earth. And there is no doubt that we are wreaking terrible damage on our world.

So much so that scientists talk about the "Anthropocene" - the destructive Era Of Man.

Our gases are polluting the atmosphere and warming the skies. Our chemicals taint the seas and the rivers; our farms and cities gobble up the landscape, pushing flora and fauna aside like sand before a bulldozer. Our green-and-blue world is still beautiful, but it is far from pristine.

Our mark is everywhere. (From the Daily Mail)

Would the world be better without us?

This is a silly question..of course it would be better off without us. There is a god damn ISLAND OF GARBAGE somewhere in the pacific ocean. Not one of those super tiny 1 mile wide islands either.

I am absolutely of the belief that the world would be better without mankind. While we have the capacity for greatness, we have the same capacity for destruction. The world was great before we came along, it will be just fine when we are gone. We wreak destruction on the environment, animals, etc. We are motivated by greed and we take what we can. I know I sound like a hippie (especially since I'm conservative) but that's the way it is. At the same time, I just have enough mental issues to value animals over humans.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is a silly question..of course it would be better off without us. There is a god damn ISLAND OF GARBAGE somewhere in the pacific ocean.

But wouldn't the world lose it's most complex creation, the human mind.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I am absolutely of the belief that the world would be better without mankind. While we have the capacity for greatness, we have the same capacity for destruction. The world was great before we came along, it will be just fine when we are gone. We wreak destruction on the environment, animals, etc. We are motivated by greed and we take what we can. I know I sound like a hippie (especially since I'm conservative) but that's the way it is. At the same time, I just have enough mental issues to value animals over humans.

Have you ever read any Jared Diamond?

No, but elaborate on this guy please. Maybe it's worth a read.

Well, there would certainly be fewer pointless philosophical questions posed.

This is a bankrupt question because whereas biodiversity would probably improve if humans vanished, the whole point why anyone (except fringe weirdos) asks if the planet (meaning biosphere, the inorganic parts of a planet are indifferent to this question) is healthy is to assess how conducive conditions are for human life.

Originally posted by psmith81992
No, but elaborate on this guy please. Maybe it's worth a read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

Since when did people rank lower then bait fish and now the planet. This planet has survived world ending asteroids and floods. People are the least of its problem.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, there would certainly be fewer pointless philosophical questions posed.

What could possibly be less pointless than a critical discussion about the worth of humanity balanced against it's virus like infection of its homeworld?

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
What could possibly be less pointless than a critical discussion about the worth of humanity balanced against it's virus like infection of its homeworld?

Environmentalism only matters insofar as it impacts the quality of human life and sustainability of human populations. To wit, I don't think even the most hardcore environmentalists would object if we eradicated all mosquito-borne viruses and other pathogens. When people inquire about the state of the biosphere, they're not concerned about some abstract measure of its "health" but how suitable it is for humans. What's good for one species can be very bad for another, in the case of human-caused climate change we're making the world steadily bad for us (and animals like bees and polar bears) but better for critters like fire ants and mosquitoes. If you don't take an anthrocentric perspective on the issue then it becomes impossible to say that the biosphere is healthy or unhealthy because as long as the planet is still within the parameters to support life in some form (which I don't think even humans could disrupt, unless we could somehow move the planet further from or closer to the sun), some species will still be thriving.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
What could possibly be less pointless than a critical discussion about the worth of humanity balanced against it's virus like infection of its homeworld?

Sounds like Agent Smith. And the illuminati agenda.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Figuring out actual solutions to human caused problems so that we don't drive ourselves extinct?

Environmentalism only matters insofar as it impacts the quality of human life and sustainability of human populations. To wit, I don't think even the most hardcore environmentalists would object if we eradicated all mosquito-borne viruses and other pathogens.

So you take the stance that the world was put here for us and argue our failure will be how disastrous the decisions we as humans make, how big businesses and capitalism will affect the environment and identifying what our principal environmental problems are today, and what individuals can do about those problems. Is that a fair interpretation of your standpoint?

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
So you take the stance that the world was put here for us and argue our failure will be how disastrous the decisions we as humans are, how big businesses and capitalism will affect the environment and identifying what our principal environmental problems are today, and what individuals can do about those problems.

Unless you define what it means for the world to be "better off," this is a pointlessly vague question.

Everyone complains about corporations yet does nothing to stop them. People eat food that comes from Monsanto. People buy gas that comes from polluting the earth. Blame the consumer for being stupid and calling the kettle black.

">>>you bad big oil companies stink!"

Then

"Goes out and buys gas at the pump"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't make any such claim. I don't believe we own the Earth. I'm simply stating that our measure of the Earth's "health" can only be based on how it suits us. There's no objective standard for a healthy biosphere. Just ask the dinosaurs. They thrived in a much hotter, more oxygen rich world which would probably be maddening, if not unlivable for humans and most mammals.

They did and at least in part we are in agreement; however, we have the potential to end all life on this planet, by accident in a variety of ways and I include in that the most hardy of bacteria.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
They did and at least in part we are in agreement; however, we have the potential to end all life on this planet, by accident in a variety of ways and I include in that the most hardy of bacteria.

This isn't me trying to belittle the devastating impact human activities have had on bio-diversity (which is probably the closest thing to the abstract "health" of the world), just stating that life is a lot tougher than we give it credit. If bacteria can survive in hot sulfur vents at the bottom of the ocean (look up chemosynthesis--it's really amazing) or in dry salt deposits buried under Death Valley, we're not wiping out life on Earth. We give ourselves a little too much credit sometimes.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
See I don't agree with that. I agree we *might* seriously hamstring most "interesting" and "complex" forms of life if we really went balls to the wall and did all we could--polluting, denonating all of our nuclear weapons, and so on--to make the world shitty, but there would still be plenty of life hanging around.

This isn't me trying to belittle the devastating impact human activities have had on bio-diversity (which is probably the closest thing to the abstract "health" of the world), just stating that life is a lot tougher than we give it credit. If bacteria can survive in hot sulfur vents at the bottom of the ocean (look up chemosynthesis--it's really amazing) or in dry salt deposits buried under Death Valley, we're not wiping out life on Earth. We give ourselves a little too much credit sometimes.

I think quite frankly if we killed ourselves off, it would be enough. Our nuclear stockpiles would not need to be detonated they would be released as radiation into the environment, the sea, the air. A nuclear winter and fallout would be overkill, it might last 5000 years.

We will have wiped out 75% of species by 2250 anyway.... it's estimated. The effect of this on other species via food chains is fascinating.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/humans-will-have-wiped-out-75-species-by-2250-geophysicist-says-1432266

Such a morbid poster. Its July 4th, aint sticking around here to see you drag us all down. SMF.

For real, TI.

This is my first 4th of July in a city.

It's going to be insane, I bet.