Author Topic: Would the world have been better off without humans?  (Read 5389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline orpat

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Darwins +2/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • What is in the bottle? No it's water
Would the world have been better off without humans?
« on: April 04, 2012, 07:51:58 PM »
Seems like it's us humans destroying the world. Looks like we may be some sort of a parasite after all.
Just asking.
Hello Homo Sapiens

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2012, 07:59:41 PM »
Better, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2012, 08:06:17 PM »
We take and don't put back.  The planet was not made for 7 billion and counting.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline orpat

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Darwins +2/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • What is in the bottle? No it's water
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2012, 08:22:46 PM »
The planet was not made for 7 billion and counting.

So what's the solution? Condoms?
Hello Homo Sapiens

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2012, 08:24:19 PM »
Doomsday Device, I've been developing one that'll spread a disease capable of wiping the human race, I'm just waiting until December 21st 2012, I figure these things are best left in the run up to Christmas.
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline orpat

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Darwins +2/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • What is in the bottle? No it's water
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2012, 08:34:41 PM »
Doomsday Device, I've been developing one that'll spread a disease capable of wiping the human race, I'm just waiting until December 21st 2012, I figure these things are best left in the run up to Christmas.

Hmm, that's great news.
Pssst..could you give me the location of your hiding place? Before 21st Dec?
Hello Homo Sapiens

Offline Ice Monkey

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Fund schools. Tax pot.
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2012, 08:35:23 PM »
Seems like it's us humans destroying the world. Looks like we may be some sort of a parasite after all.
Just asking.

No.
Who else would cut the grass?  Jeez.  :?
Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion." -- Charlie Chaplin

Offline orpat

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Darwins +2/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • What is in the bottle? No it's water
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2012, 08:38:12 PM »
Seems like it's us humans destroying the world. Looks like we may be some sort of a parasite after all.
Just asking.

No.
Who else would cut the grass?  Jeez.  :?

Duh animals of course.
Hello Homo Sapiens

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2012, 08:39:29 PM »
There are species that were doomed anyway.  Horses once had 2 dozen species but were dying off.  They completely died off in the Americas before humans arrived.  The horses have only survived because of their symbiotic relationship with us.

Life on Earth has lucked out on the matter of asteroid strikes.   Something's going to get it sooner or later.  Our abscence won't save it.   Only the conscious part of Earth's life will make any of it survive.

Offline Ice Monkey

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Fund schools. Tax pot.
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2012, 08:43:38 PM »
Seems like it's us humans destroying the world. Looks like we may be some sort of a parasite after all.
Just asking.

No.
Who else would cut the grass?  Jeez.  :?

Duh animals of course.

You think a goat's gonna remember to change the direction of the cut every time?
They rarely cut in around the edges. 
But if you think the planet isn't worthy of an even, lush lawn, trimmed bushes, an occasional fresh coat of paint, and timely snow shovelling....
Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion." -- Charlie Chaplin

Offline Ice Monkey

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Fund schools. Tax pot.
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2012, 08:45:32 PM »
There are species that were doomed anyway.  Horses once had 2 dozen species but were dying off.  They completely died off in the Americas before humans arrived.  The horses have only survived because of their symbiotic relationship with us.

Life on Earth has lucked out on the matter of asteroid strikes.   Something's going to get it sooner or later.  Our abscence won't save it.   Only the conscious part of Earth's life will make any of it survive.

Most of the species that have ever lived are extinct, and that happened without our involvement.
Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion." -- Charlie Chaplin

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2012, 08:45:51 PM »
Doomsday Device, I've been developing one that'll spread a disease capable of wiping the human race

Come on Sepp, I'm sure your breath isn't quite that bad.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline orpat

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Darwins +2/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • What is in the bottle? No it's water
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2012, 08:46:02 PM »
Life on Earth has lucked out on the matter of asteroid strikes.   Something's going to get it sooner or later.  Our abscence won't save it.   Only the conscious part of Earth's life will make any of it survive.

Yeah but we never know when or whether it will happen or not? But with humans we know it'll happen.
Hello Homo Sapiens

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 707
  • Darwins +17/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2012, 08:52:32 PM »
Depends on how you look at it. But the planet has a lot of good miles left, even after us. A few million years to recover from us.

Offline orpat

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Darwins +2/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • What is in the bottle? No it's water
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2012, 09:04:21 PM »

You think a goat's gonna remember to change the direction of the cut every time?
They rarely cut in around the edges. 
But if you think the planet isn't worthy of an even, lush lawn, trimmed bushes, an occasional fresh coat of paint, and timely snow shovelling....

I don't get it. The world's destroyed and all the concern is cutting the grass? But i guess chimp's will evolve into humans and start doing it.
Hello Homo Sapiens

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6271
  • Darwins +722/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2012, 09:44:08 PM »
If this article is correct, that MIT successfully predicted the future back in 1970, and that we are right on track with their prediction, we're toast folks.

Most of us won't even be able to afford whatever it costs to stick our head between our legs and kiss our sorry asses goodbye.

Edit: Oh yea, the link: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html#
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2012, 09:46:05 PM »
There were approx 400 million people on the planet in 1492 when Columbus came to the New World.  In that time till now we are at around 7 billion.  Something has got to give.  Maybe Dec. 21st will take care of that.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1766
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2012, 10:14:21 PM »
There have been mass extinctions before; that in itself is nothing new. It definitely doesn't reflect well on our species that we're responsible for eliminating so much biodiversity, not to mention (perhaps) ourselves.

If this article is correct, that MIT successfully predicted the future back in 1970, and that we are right on track with their prediction, we're toast folks.

If that's true, I feel sorriest for my nephew and his generation.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2012, 10:29:00 PM »
So 18 or so years left.  Let's party for tomorrow it's Mad Max.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6354
  • Darwins +812/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2012, 10:51:45 PM »
So 18 or so years left.  Let's party for tomorrow it's Mad Max.

As long as I get to wear Tina Turner's chain mail dress and party with the stud in her Thunderdome video.....let the games begin!

Of course the world would have been better off without us. Yet, here we are, perched precariously (and temporarily) at the top of the food chain... :o
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2012, 09:33:27 AM »

So what's the solution? Condoms?

Condoms, the pill, education, people who make a career out of being welfare moms, and ending tax breaks for having kids. Easier access to abortion procedures would help too, as well as mandatory sterilization of people with severe congenital defects and career criminals.

But most importantly, stop the Cult of Pregnancy = good. The simpering glorification of babies as something amazing, special, rare, precious, and wonderful. That the simple act of breeding is some sort of special form of qualification for sainthood, something we must pay homage and deference to. Perhaps if society didn't make it so darn attractive, people would have less children.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 10:09:36 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2012, 10:04:20 AM »
The UN (and the USA) needs to adopt China"s one child policy.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1208
  • Darwins +27/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2012, 10:48:55 AM »
If life had never appeared on earth it would have been just as well off..just another of trillions of sterile rocks circling a star.. :?
Don't worry though..as long as Bruce Willis is alive we're fine.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 10:52:36 AM by atheola »
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6354
  • Darwins +812/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2012, 02:55:19 PM »

So what's the solution? Condoms?

Condoms, the pill, education, people who make a career out of being welfare moms, and ending tax breaks for having kids. Easier access to abortion procedures would help too, as well as mandatory sterilization of people with severe congenital defects and career criminals.

But most importantly, stop the Cult of Pregnancy = good. The simpering glorification of babies as something amazing, special, rare, precious, and wonderful. That the simple act of breeding is some sort of special form of qualification for sainthood, something we must pay homage and deference to. Perhaps if society didn't make it so darn attractive, people would have less children.
The US birth rate is not very high at around 2 kids per woman--not as low as Europe but nowhere near as high as India, Latin America or Africa. Increasing numbers of US-born couples are imitating Europeans by having no children at all. Very few people think that raising a large family on welfare payments is an attractive lifestyle, and poor people are not the huge consumers of the planet's resources.

Large families are just not viable in urban industrial societies where everything costs money and kids stay dependent into their 20's.
People have lots of kids in places where babies die a lot, kids bring in income, women have few rights and people must support their elderly parents in the absence of old age benefits.

Worldwide, people voluntarily have fewer children when they have good social welfare policies, so they don't feel the need to have many kids to ensure basic survival.

People need assurance that they won't fall into utter poverty, a guarantee that their kids will survive infancy, and security for their old age.  Opportunities for women and girls other than raising the next generation is also important.  Then people can have one or two kids instead of 6-8.

A stopgap social policy (that can not be implemented for obvious reasons) would be for every first world person to adopt two kids from a poor country instead of having their own. Then the poor family would know that at least two of their kids would survive, and the first world people could have their cute babies.

But even that would only be a temporary solution, because adding more people to the first world will destroy the planet even faster. The most reasonable thing would be for first world people to help support kids in the third world so that they can stay in their low-consuming countries.

But that ain't going to happen either. Sigh.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Eaten by Bears

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2012, 03:16:00 PM »
The world is a lump of rock. It doesn't care what is on its surface. In these terms, 'better' is meaningless.

It's like all the people who say 'Save the Planet'. The planet couldn't give a crap about if there are lush forests or barren deserts and lakes of lava running all over it. What they actually mean is 'Save Humanity.' But of course, that doesn't sound as catchy.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2012, 03:21:38 PM »
The world is a lump of rock. It doesn't care what is on its surface. In these terms, 'better' is meaningless.

It's like all the people who say 'Save the Planet'. The planet couldn't give a crap about if there are lush forests or barren deserts and lakes of lava running all over it. What they actually mean is 'Save Humanity.' But of course, that doesn't sound as catchy.

Well it does, except for it has been co-opted by the anti-choice crowd.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Eaten by Bears

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2012, 03:29:02 PM »
Well, there's only one choice now.


Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2012, 06:28:34 PM »
Anyone read Ismael?

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Would the world have been better off without humans?
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2012, 08:01:38 PM »
There's no way to tell. If humans hadn't been around presumably, as is the way of evolution, some other species would have risen to the top of the food chain. They would developed their own societies with their own problems. For all we know things might have been worse.

Remember for there to be no humans there would have to be no mammals at all. So what non-mammal species could have evolved to where we are today?
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".