Better..with or without

[Jagador]

Ok.. so i have put alot of thought into this, and i have come to a conclusion that

"This world doesn't need us, just nature itself..."

If you agree/disagree, post if you agree or disagree and why... if we have enough of both.. i believe that this could turn out to be.. quite interesting, but i don't know for sure

I believe that without us humans here on this earth, we would not have sped up the global warming process...

[Sage]

Yes the earth would be better off without us, but being a human, I want to live goddamnit. The earth is a hospitable (well, mostly) yet insignificant little speck in the vast universe. As humans, we're naturally biased to sympathising with sentient beings. The earth, though dynamic and vastly complex, is not sentient.

[Modus Operandi]

It is a fact that many species would be better off without us, but I believe there is always a dominant life form on a planet(yes, I do believe in life on other planets).

And as Deschain said, I wanna stay alive!

[RaeNose]

I'm probably going to end up qualifying this, but anyway...
The world doesn't necessarily need us, but it does require nature.
Technically, we are part of nature. However, we distance ourselves from our natural origins. We are a species that ended up dominating. I agree on the dominant life idea (written about previously), and that we just happen to be that species.

[Jagador]

Idk... i still feel that we shoulda stay unevolved.. lol but thats just my opinion... xD :) I believe that it is a shame that we are the dominating specie that is going to bring our own doom over time.....

[RaeNose]

You only feel that way because our species has reason. A great double-edged sword.
It can save and destroy our home in one swift motion.
There's nothing we can really do about being the dominating species, except for lighten our imprint on the rest of nature.

[Mzor203]

Well of course the world would be better off without us. If you look at the time since life began on Earth, we've come in and completely wrecked our world in a split second (geologically speaking).

Give us a whole minute to do our *wonders* and Earth will hardly exist any more.

But what can you do? No one has the initiative to change their ways... if everyone worked towards protecting the world, we could do a lot of good for nature as a whole. Hell, with our technology we can bring more genetic diversity to this planet than could ever occur naturally.

Oh well. Live life I guess.

[Sage]

Hell, with our technology we can bring more genetic diversity to this planet than could ever occur naturally.

I want my lizard-people.

[Atonement]

Technically, we are part of nature.

Yet we are about as far from natuarl behaving as you can get.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

it would be better if an asteroid hit the earth than if we continue at the rate of species extinction caused by us.

[bluestarkidd]

I think the human race, has been a horrible steward of this planet and the good old corrupt USA has been the leader of that stewardship the past century.

[RaeNose]

Yet we are about as far from natuarl behaving as you can get.

It's a strange contradiction, isn't it?
You know, a great prose that reflects on this is "The Warfare in the Forest is not Wanton". Great stuff. Very enlightening.
Although, I think we are more alike in nature than we think. We're using key survival instincts, along with traits like greed, materialism, etc. In order to create this false society in which money and material items are illusionary.
Every creature on this planet come down to the basic need for water, food, and shelter.

[Brazdar]

Well I believe we're somewhat part of nature with all our technology and such, unfortunately I think we're too much for the poor nature to handle us, most people consider humans as animals but they forget something: we have the ability to think, to chose, we have reason and that separates us from other animals, but it doesn't mean it makes us better.

[Camazotz]

We've screwed up evolution for our species beyond repair. We've caused animals to go extinct because of neglect and carelessness. We've sped up global warming. Nearly all living creatures would benefit if we were to disappear of the face of the Earth.

But I'm glad we have developed over time. Hopefully our future actions will help us fix nature.

[Jagador]

We've screwed up evolution for our species beyond repair. We've caused animals to go extinct because of neglect and carelessness. We've sped up global warming. Nearly all living creatures would benefit if we were to disappear of the face of the Earth.

But I'm glad we have developed over time. Hopefully our future actions will help us fix nature.

Well.. i believe that we haven't developed enough. We are still destroying this earth to its bare roots. Draining it of its resources. I personally think that our future action will be a nuclear war... but who knows... no one does.. yet anyway.

It's a strange contradiction, isn't it?
You know, a great prose that reflects on this is "The Warfare in the Forest is not Wanton". Great stuff. Very enlightening.
Although, I think we are more alike in nature than we think. We're using key survival instincts, along with traits like greed, materialism, etc. In order to create this false society in which money and material items are illusionary.
Every creature on this planet come down to the basic need for water, food, and shelter.

Actually we are slightly off the course of nature. I agree that we are closer to nature than we think, but we are also off the course of nature(meanin we are slightly off the animal behavior and what we do)

[RaeNose]

That's because we have the "gift: or reason.
It's not much, but it has skewed our views from the rest of nature.

[Countertopspin]

the world would be way better without us

animal abuse, animal testing, burning down forests

all the redundant ( in my opinion ) stuff such as air conditioner and the car

yep, we humans can never get enough of anything

[Zero Beat]

I think it would be better without us. We just take take take, and dont give much back. If we were to all die out right this moment. The earth would take ages to gain back what we have taken to be like it was.

[Sage]

I never understood people who insist that humans are bad. You're a human. Your species does what it must to survive and flourish. That's no different than what any other species does, we're just more intelligent.

[INFERNO]

I think even if humans were gone and never interfered, then some other species would be dominant, use natural resources, kill other animals, etc... . It's unavoidable, however, the difference is not whether damage to the Earth would be done or not, it's how much damage would be done. If humans were gone, then there may never have been nuclear bombs made, however, animals would still kill each other, possibly even to being endangered or extinction.

The issue is the process of evolution, it changes things for the better or worse, humans cannot be blamed for that. Evolution would lead to changes and may result in some species dominating others, showing abnormal behaviors, etc... . Nature changes, that too is unavoidable.

As for how much technology would be invented, well, that's hard to say. Evolution doesn't look down the road, it looks to the here-and-now so it's hard to say if technology would never occur because our ancestors probably wouldn't have known we'd be as technologically advanced as we currently are.

However, humans haven't only done negative things, we'd discovered medicines, surgeries, etc..., all of which can and do "heal" people and other animals. We test on other animals, however, with us gone, those animals probably would've died from other natural predators, disease, starvation, etc... .

So I don't really have an answer because if evolution hadn't led to humans, it's hard to answer this question since we don't know what would have been in our place, how advanced they would be and so forth. If you look at vertebrate evolution though (doing a third-year university course in it), evolution was making organisms more advanced (although doesn't have to) so I find it unavoidable that organisms would have eventually conquered nature to some extent.

With these arguments, many say humans are bad, harmful, etc... and I'd have my head up my ass if I disagreed, however, I'd also have my head up my ass if I said other non-human organisms haven't done damage to nature. For example, deer piss and crap in the water, thus polluting it and affecting other animals. That's going to occur regardless if humans are around. The fact that the deer may be killed by some other animals will occur regardless if humans are around. The fact that the deers may migrate away to avoid predation and consequently get killed, get infected with diseases or starve to death will occur regardless if humans are around.

[Delusion15]

Eh Evolution will always make a dominant species and i would rather be the dominant species then have to worry every night that the deer people are going to go hunting for human meat

[Aves]

i want my lizard-people.

same here!

[qazplm]

The world would be much better without humans. we are only destroying it.

[Sage]

The world would be much better without humans. we are only destroying it.

But without humans around to give a shit, it doesn't matter how good the world is.

[qazplm]

But without humans around to give a shit, it doesn't matter how good the world is.
well yes, but the world would be like it it should be.

[CaptainObvious]

The world would be much better without humans. we are only destroying it.

This doesn't make any sense. We're not "destroying" nature. In fact, that isn't even a meaningful concept. Nature doesn't care if global warming occurs; nature will survive. We care, since we define our ideal state of nature to be one in which conditions for our survival are best provided by the natural environment. Ironically, our attempts to advance ourselves deviate us from the goal, but that doesn't mean we're "destroying" nature, just changing it. It requires an anthropocentric value system to call that destruction.

So to answer the original question, no, I don't think the world would be "better" or "worse" without us... it'd just be different.

[Sage]

well yes, but the world would be like it it should be.

And do you know who defines "the way it should be"? Humans.

[INFERNO]

The world would be much better without humans. we are only destroying it.

I'll agree that we are affecting the Earth however we're not destroying it. Look at other animals that have ravaged the land, we're not the only ones involved in this. In the end though, nature will win, humans will lose because we're only here temporarily.

well yes, but the world would be like it it should be.

I'm not understanding this, how should the world be? Since evolution shaped humans, one can say that nature molded humans the way we are. If the world should be something else, then how does evolution play into that world? Regardless if it's humans, evolution will make dominant species and all species will have their effects on the Earth.

The second problem though is that this definition of how the world should be isn't the natural world. It's the world humans want, which isn't going to be the natural world that nature intended. You cant have a sudden change in the world just because one species is pissy at the world as it currently is. The world and nature are dynamic, they gradually change, it's not a stacato-like world.