-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Would the Earth be better off..without the human race?
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
A truly Thunderous question.
Would a forklift be better off if nobody carried anything with it?
Would a car be better off if nobody drove it?
Would a house be better off if nobody lived in it?
Would a road be better off if nobody drove on it?
Would a ship be better off if it never went to sea?
Would a factory be better off if it never produced any goods?
Would a car be better off if nobody drove it?
Would a house be better off if nobody lived in it?
Would a road be better off if nobody drove on it?
Would a ship be better off if it never went to sea?
Would a factory be better off if it never produced any goods?
How “well off” can a thing be that doesn't have the opportunity to fulfill its purpose?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
care to address the thread? or just make stupid comments.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Keep in mind that he lives in New York City, which is probably one of the closest places on Earth to the sort of place in which he thinks all humans should live. And I think most of us have at least some idea what a ****hole New York City is.
If I think I need to look to anyone other than myself to tell me how and where to live, Thunder will certainly not be on the list of those from whom I would seek such advice.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
this thread isn't about me, Bob.
Cephus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Location
- CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Not really, the sun is only about half way through it's life cycle. The planet still has more than 5 billion years until the sun becomes a red giant and cooks the planet to a cinder. Plenty of time for lots of evolution to go on.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
wth... why would you tell people to kill themselves?
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The earth doesn't remotely rely on us - it could keep us or lose us.
I'm taking a physical geology course this semester - and it's amazing how much of 'the earth' occurs without any regard to what populates the continents - people tend to refer to our potential effect on the climate as if we're going to arrest all of this or something - and slow the core and end all life. . . which is just too laughable. The real question is: just how much punishment can humans take?
SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
"Better?" The earth doesn't care one way or the other that we're here. It would be different. Neither here nor there.
But if we were the factor in the state of being of all living things, then I suppose the answer is yes. Pretty much every other species on earth is hurt by humans in some way. We're like the bad roommate who moved in and trashed the place. I suppose life would be better for them if humans didn't exist.
Really? Do you think your son was sapient enough to appreciate beauty and feel wonder when he was in 1st grade?
If you answered "yes," then you're quite wrong. Dolphins are at least that intelligent. At least.
Some other animals show a deep capacity for emotion - including cross-species empathy, grief, joy, depression, etc. And most mammals do have some emotional range.
The earth is a hunk of rock. And our point of view matters to nothing and no one but us. Humans are simply not that important.
But if we were the factor in the state of being of all living things, then I suppose the answer is yes. Pretty much every other species on earth is hurt by humans in some way. We're like the bad roommate who moved in and trashed the place. I suppose life would be better for them if humans didn't exist.
Really? Do you think your son was sapient enough to appreciate beauty and feel wonder when he was in 1st grade?
If you answered "yes," then you're quite wrong. Dolphins are at least that intelligent. At least.
Some other animals show a deep capacity for emotion - including cross-species empathy, grief, joy, depression, etc. And most mammals do have some emotional range.
The earth is a hunk of rock. And our point of view matters to nothing and no one but us. Humans are simply not that important.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 47,477
- Reaction score
- 53,180
- Location
- Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I dispute that dolphins are as intelligent as even a 6yo human, or as capable of abstract thought and other advanced mental activity.
Humanity is the most important species on Earth... to Humanity, and ours is the opinion that counts, because we're the most advanced species by a vast degree. Any human that doesn't put humanity ahead of animals and plants and 'nature' makes me wonder if they are sane.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It seems necessary to me to point out that this “Dr. Ian Malcom” is a fictional character, from the book Jurassic Park, and the movies based thereon. You're referring to a chapter in the book in which, on his deathbed, he gives a brilliant lecture on the resilience of the Earth and of life in general, and the arrogance of Mankind in thinking we have so much power over all of it. Alas, this lecture did not make it in any form into the movie. In the movie, he was played by Jeff Goldblum, and survives to appear in two sequels.
In the book, mortally-wounded, he gives a brilliant lecture before he dies.
Hammond seemed to revive, and began bustling around, straightening up. “Well,” he said, “at least that disaster is averted.”
“What disaster is that?” Malcolm said, sighing.
“Well,” Hammond said, “They [dinosaurs] didn't get free and overrun the world.”
Malcolm sat up on one elbow. “You were worried about that?”
“Surely that's what was at stake,” Hammond said. “These animals, lacking predators, might get out and destroy the planet.”
“You egomaniacal idiot,” Malcolm said in a fury. “Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You think you can destroy the planet? My, what intoxicating power you must have.” Malcolm sank back on the bed. “You can't destroy this planet. You can't even come close.”
“Most people believe,” Hammond said stiffly, “that the planet is in jeopardy.”
“Well it is not,” Malcolm said.
“All the experts agree that our planet is in trouble.”
Malcolm sighed. “Let me tell you about this planet” he said. “This planet is four and a half billion years old. There has been life on this planet for nearly that long. Three point eight billion years. The first bacteria. And, later, the first multicellular animals, then the first complex creatures, in the sea, on the land. Then the great sweeping ages of animals—the amphibians, the dinosaurs, the mammals, each lasting millions upon millions of years. Great dynasties of creatures arising, flourishing, dying away. All this happening against a background of continuous and violent upheaval, mountain ranges thrust up and eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving… Endless constant and violent change… Even today, the greatest geographical feature on the planet comes from two great continents colliding, buckling to make the Himalayan mountain range over millions of years. The planet has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us.”
Hammond frowned. “Just because it lasted a long time,” he said, “doesn't mean it is permanent. If there was a radiation accident…”
“Suppose there was,” Malcolm said. “Let's say we had a bad one, and all the plants and animals died, and the earth was clicking hot for a hundred thousand years. Life would survive somewhere—under the soil, or perhaps frozen in the Arctic ice. And after all those years, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would again spread over the planet. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. And of course, it would be very different from what it is now. But the earth would survive our folly. Life would survive our folly. Only we,” Malcolm said, “think it wouldn't.”
Hammond said, “Well, if the ozone layer gets thinner—”
“There will be more ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface. So what?”
“Well. It'll cause skin cancer.”
Malcolm shook his head. “Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation.”
“And many others will die out,” Hammond said.
Malcolm sighed. “You think this is the first time such a thing has happened? Don't you know about oxygen?”
“I know it's necessary for life.”
“It is now,” Malcolm said. “But oxygen is actually a metabolic poison. It's a corrosive gas, like fluorine, which is used to etch glass. And when oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells—say, around three billion years ago—it created a crisis for all other life on our planet. Those plant cells were polluting the environment with a deadly poison. On earth, the concentration of oxygen was going up rapidly—five, ten, eventually twenty one percent! Earth had an atmosphere of pure poison! Incompatible with life!”
Hammond looked irritated. “So what's your point? That modern pollutants will be incorporated, too?”
“No,” Malcolm said. “My point is that life on earth can take care of itself. In the thinking of a human being, a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago, we didn't have cars and airplanes and computers and vaccines… It was a whole different world. But to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and haven't got the humility to try. We have been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we are gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”
“And we might very well be gone,” Hammond said, huffing.
“Yes,” Malcolm said, “we might.”
“So what are you saying? We should not care about the environment?”
“No, of course not.”
“Then what?”
Malcolm coughed, and stared into the distance. “Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet—or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.”
“What disaster is that?” Malcolm said, sighing.
“Well,” Hammond said, “They [dinosaurs] didn't get free and overrun the world.”
Malcolm sat up on one elbow. “You were worried about that?”
“Surely that's what was at stake,” Hammond said. “These animals, lacking predators, might get out and destroy the planet.”
“You egomaniacal idiot,” Malcolm said in a fury. “Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You think you can destroy the planet? My, what intoxicating power you must have.” Malcolm sank back on the bed. “You can't destroy this planet. You can't even come close.”
“Most people believe,” Hammond said stiffly, “that the planet is in jeopardy.”
“Well it is not,” Malcolm said.
“All the experts agree that our planet is in trouble.”
Malcolm sighed. “Let me tell you about this planet” he said. “This planet is four and a half billion years old. There has been life on this planet for nearly that long. Three point eight billion years. The first bacteria. And, later, the first multicellular animals, then the first complex creatures, in the sea, on the land. Then the great sweeping ages of animals—the amphibians, the dinosaurs, the mammals, each lasting millions upon millions of years. Great dynasties of creatures arising, flourishing, dying away. All this happening against a background of continuous and violent upheaval, mountain ranges thrust up and eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving… Endless constant and violent change… Even today, the greatest geographical feature on the planet comes from two great continents colliding, buckling to make the Himalayan mountain range over millions of years. The planet has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us.”
Hammond frowned. “Just because it lasted a long time,” he said, “doesn't mean it is permanent. If there was a radiation accident…”
“Suppose there was,” Malcolm said. “Let's say we had a bad one, and all the plants and animals died, and the earth was clicking hot for a hundred thousand years. Life would survive somewhere—under the soil, or perhaps frozen in the Arctic ice. And after all those years, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would again spread over the planet. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. And of course, it would be very different from what it is now. But the earth would survive our folly. Life would survive our folly. Only we,” Malcolm said, “think it wouldn't.”
Hammond said, “Well, if the ozone layer gets thinner—”
“There will be more ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface. So what?”
“Well. It'll cause skin cancer.”
Malcolm shook his head. “Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation.”
“And many others will die out,” Hammond said.
Malcolm sighed. “You think this is the first time such a thing has happened? Don't you know about oxygen?”
“I know it's necessary for life.”
“It is now,” Malcolm said. “But oxygen is actually a metabolic poison. It's a corrosive gas, like fluorine, which is used to etch glass. And when oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells—say, around three billion years ago—it created a crisis for all other life on our planet. Those plant cells were polluting the environment with a deadly poison. On earth, the concentration of oxygen was going up rapidly—five, ten, eventually twenty one percent! Earth had an atmosphere of pure poison! Incompatible with life!”
Hammond looked irritated. “So what's your point? That modern pollutants will be incorporated, too?”
“No,” Malcolm said. “My point is that life on earth can take care of itself. In the thinking of a human being, a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago, we didn't have cars and airplanes and computers and vaccines… It was a whole different world. But to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and haven't got the humility to try. We have been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we are gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”
“And we might very well be gone,” Hammond said, huffing.
“Yes,” Malcolm said, “we might.”
“So what are you saying? We should not care about the environment?”
“No, of course not.”
“Then what?”
Malcolm coughed, and stared into the distance. “Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet—or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.”
The credit, of courts, belongs not to the fictional “Dr. Ian Malcom”, but to the brilliant author and scientist John Michael Crichton (and, alas, fairly recently deceased) who wrote this book, including this lecture.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
I really don't think that we are the only creatures able to enjoy the beauty of the Earth. Many creatures cats, lions, etc. love to bask in the sun light and they also see the world unlike you... crouching and preying, climbing mountains and gazing at herds of animals grazing, etc. even the smells many other creatures can smell are more magnified. Humans definitely don't live their their noses. I am not sure what humans live through... tvs, money, and materialism most likely. The only time humans really enjoy the natural beauty of the world is when they go on vacation or retire, unless you're lucky and live somewhere beautiful everyday but most of us don't.
The only valid argument that I could think of as why humans shouldn't exist, is the humans have caused more destruction to the planet... it's beauty... and to other species, including it's own species, than other other creature to ever exist on the planet. Which is kind of ironic when you think about your argument. I, however, won't argue that the planet would be better if we all died off and disappeared. What we have done to our world would remain. Our animals and house pets have been removed from their natural instincts to survive on their own. If we suddenly disappeared, much of the damage we have caused is still going to remain. Our cats and dogs would be literally killing each other... wild animals would infest the streets and prey on dogs and cats for food. Buildings would crumble and eventually much of the world would resemble a garbage dump... there would most likely be lots of poisoning of natural resources other creatures use for survival as well.
To say it would be better if we were gone, would be short sighted.
And if humans are the brain, they I'd say animals are actually the soul. They have done nothing but stay true to their instincts until we taught them otherwise. Their habitats would have remained intact and have been naturally preserved for much longer, if not for us. Most philosophers loved by America's founders even argue that humans need government, because it's better than being in the state of nature without government. So I'd say that animals are better off, remaining in their state of nature than not... and that's why they'd be more of the soul, humans, the brain...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I think I addressed it was well as it can be addressed. “How ‘well off’ can a thing be that doesn't have the opportunity to fulfill its purpose?”, I said.
There is no rational basis on which to discuss the well-being of the Earth, without us here to experience it. The Earth's purpose is to support humanity. Without us, it is exactly as relevant as a forklift with no driver and no payload to carry.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
That's a little effed up... I mean, cockroaches are said to be able to survive a nuclear holocaust. The Mythbusters also verified that as fact, along with many other insects. And in any case, it's been other creatures and innocent people getting the short end of stick when it comes to consequences of our actions. Many of us, don't really create cancer and release poisons into the environment. It's more or less the immoral and irresponsible behavior of large companies and coercive governments with no care for it's citizens.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Your previous post basically argued that you don't care how much damage and destruction humans cause to other species, because it's some kind of natural right to do so... Is that your belief or not?
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
according to what, your bull**** bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, genocidal fantasy book called the Bible?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
LOL - the Earth predates humanity by millions of years.
Earth = 1 . . . humans = 0
Sorry: but we're just another species that developed by making use of the elements here. . .we're nothing special.
It's shameful ot look at the history of the earth and map it in the 100's of millions of years - and then to look at human history and map it only in the thousands. And our 'developed, modern age' has only been present for a fraction of that.
We sort of suck as a species if you ask me if all this time - and that's all we can manage. . . holy poo how so sad.
Earth = 1 . . . humans = 0
Sorry: but we're just another species that developed by making use of the elements here. . .we're nothing special.
It's shameful ot look at the history of the earth and map it in the 100's of millions of years - and then to look at human history and map it only in the thousands. And our 'developed, modern age' has only been present for a fraction of that.
We sort of suck as a species if you ask me if all this time - and that's all we can manage. . . holy poo how so sad.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
well, it was made by God, with the plan to have it formed and get all ready for its rightful owners....Adam & Steve.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
well, it was made by God, with the plan to have it formed and get all ready for its rightful owners....Adam & Steve.
LOL - there was a time when I actually believe that.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
—————
—————
is this blank image of nothing supposed to mean something?
you claimed the Earth's purpose is to provide for humanity.
this, even though the Earth predates mankind by billions of years...and your idea is based on a racist, homophobic, genocidal, and misogynistic book called the Bible.
:2rofll:
nonpareil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,108
- Reaction score
- 743
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You're really saying the Earth is better for human beings (or those sapient enough) if those beings exist. If there's no brain to speak of, then there's nothing to care that the brain doesn't exist. Even if you believe in God, human are like children who go around destroying the furniture and the walls in the house the "father" made for them, the walls and the furniture would be better off without those children. Human plunders the earth for minerals, raze down forests, pollute the ocean, those things aren't good for the Earth, but it's good for Human beings. There's nothing "self-hate" about recognizing that humans are destructive to the Earth and still living, I don't kid myself that I care about the Earth more than I care about my comfort.
Last edited:
nonpareil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,108
- Reaction score
- 743
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sunbelt
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 49
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The better question to ask is: would the earth get along just fine if all moonbats, everywhere, were somehow wiped off the face of the earth? I would say yes.
nonpareil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,108
- Reaction score
- 743
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Have we tried this? Do you know how long it took for life-form to surface on earth, do you even know its origin? So how do you know that it takes "minutes of geological time" for it to re-surface after we wipe it out? The idea that the Earth will always maintain life because it has maintained life is a fallacy.
Last edited: