Serious Balance Of The Nature

Hello.
I am here to talk about a sadistic topic:
Extinsion of humans.
Please do not harass me based on this thread. This is based on my logical (not sentimental) view on nature.

Before I make any conclusion, I will only post a statement that we can argue about.
I will not guarantee that there won't be any flaming, because people with different opinions tend to draw their arguments far.

(Mods: Please don't be picky c:)

Do you think human extinction is good or bad?

 

From one side, yes, because all the shit we're doing like deforestation, trowing stuff in rivers and stuff like that will finally end, and also no destruction of natural habitats for some species.
From the other side, however, it can be a bad thing. We all see how many factories we made all around, expecially nuclear ones, without nobody to keep them safe, it can cause another disaster like Chernobyl (id remember how that's spelt dun hurt meh) and anything around would be affected by it, defnetly in a bad way.

IMO

 

Zahr. You just put two examples on the same view :3

 

idrc

 

I think you mean extinction.
If your goal is ultimately the survivors of the human race then off course it's bad. If the survival of all/most species lies at the top of your list I'd say that it's also bad that humans will go extinct, yea we caused a lot of problems, but we are also the only specie on the plant that is solving them.

 

Humans live on plants?

 

Humans vary. There's the good, and the bad.
For all I know, humans are going to destroy themselves before nature and time can do it's thing.

To answer your question: It's good if we were to be extinct of our own fault - as that is what we would deserve, it's bad if that's what nature and time decides (Well, good as well as we won't be extinct through our own fault - but you get the jist).

Although we're messing with the nature so much in these days.

 

I see your point on that we are a part of the food chain in nature, and that if one species fall, many more will. Thus the humans alone managed to kill more species than it's naturally supposed to.
1. Have our exceptional minds surpassed the expectations of nature?
2. Would there be problems without humans?
3. What is our role on earth?

 

Technically, yes. It's called the food chain.

1) nature has no expectations. If you mean finding ways to cheat death from other life forms, yes.
2) yea, all life on earth are here by chance, we might cause a lot of problems but there will still be giant ecological disasters without us.
3) to live, survive. The goal justifies the means.

 

By on I meant on top of. You said "the only specie on the plant"

 

Then no, we do not live on plants.

 

2.1 Like what. Harmony between other species? Naturally, the strongest survive. Strong genes move on whilst weak ones perish. We are the only species that take care of every offspring, which leads to owerflow.
What is worst:
Humans stay on earth?
Humans perish?

3.1. We all want to live survive, which is where the problems appear. Humans have developed a mind that sympathises other humans (with exceptions such as: cannibals and maniacs). At the same time oyr ego decides who will survive and who will not.
Extinction of humans by humans is seen as "inhumane", but the question is:
Is it right or wrong?

The same question pops up every time. Let's find an answer ;)

 

When you get a virus, you get a fever. That's the human body raising its core temperature to kill the virus. Planet Earth works the same way: Global warming is the fever, mankind is the virus. We're making our planet sick. A cull is our only hope. If we don't reduce our population ourselves, there's only one of two ways this can go: The host kills the virus, or the virus kills the host. Either way... The result is the same: The virus dies.
- Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

Whether extinction is good or bad is relative to which viewpoint you are looking from. Obviously a human doesn't normally want the extinction of his species, so i assume most views on this are mostly biased, however from the view of the planet or just about 99% of all living organisms apart from humans, humans should all go die.

What has also been talked about (especially in my geography class) was that the amount of species may temporarily decrease due to global transformation by humans, as the rate of human development has been particularly fast, but all this is actually doing in the grand scheme is creating a "clean slate" for new species to evolve in the changed world. The dawn of industrialized humanity can therefore be seen as some sort of natural disaster such as the meteor that killed all the dinosaurs; Yes, a bunch of things die and everything changes, but no, it isn't the end.

Personally, go die humanity.

________________________________

Ive seen a few questions by @huge6446 so ill continue writing a little more.

1. The human mind, especially the ability to share what a single mind can think of globally has obviously made the development of humans as a species far more accelerated to that of any other animal, as are the complex things we can create either chemically or mechanically way more advanced that whatever tools animals may use in the wild. Sure, evolution and "nature" provided us with the minds as well as the resources to build what we are and have now... but being so different from other species in technological advance... well...

2. Initially, if humans would suddenly disappear right now as i am typing, all hell would break loose. Machines overheating, car and plane crashes initially obviously. Then the deaths of domesticated animals or farm animals dependent on regular feeding by the holder, as well as the deaths of any plants, crops, anything growing in greenhouses that needs regular watering, care, or needs crop rotation to be able to keep the soil fertile. Death of any animal that is mostly dependent on the existence of humans in some way, such as rodents, foxes, or anything similar that instead of staying in the wild became dependent on the food we humans throw away. A bit later, collapse of buildings, large structures such as dams, nuclear reactors, all plenty to destroy the world a few times if humans left it unattended for too long.
However, assuming we would not just disappear, but everything humans had ever created either made completely safe or non-existant, nothing would change. Humans are at the top of the food chain. Apart from scavengers or insects that rely on the help of humans no animal would be affected, and even those could just go and find the next highest in the food chain to scavenge and rely on.

So, basically, go make everything safe and nice for the ecosystem... and then go die humanity.

 

you killed this thread fran :c
Now this is what you call a "threadbreaker"
Frangod <3

 

You have a mistake in your argument, it's not "the survival of the fittest" the way evolution works is not that only the strong survive, evolution works by killing off the weak members, those whose genes slow them down. So it isn't the survival of the fittest, it's more of the survival of the enough.
For example: giraffes and trees, if every tree will suddenly be ten meters tall every giraffe smaller than ten meters would die of starvation, it's not that only the two highest giraffes would live, every giraffe taller than ten meters would live and contribute to the gene pool.
By taking care of any and all human offspring we are the only specie that has a naturally worsening gene pool. (Many other species have a naturally worsening gene pool but that's mostly our fault).
And for question 2.1) it completely relies on your view point.
My view is that we must survive, evolve, adapt. It doesn't matter if we live on this mudball we so affectionately call "Earth" or on a different planet or space ship.

 

(A warning: I wrote this at the same time as I was getting my thoughts into order, so the wording might be slightly confusing. Hopefully i got my main point across correctly.)

Everyone in this thread seems to be assuming the survival of as many animal species as possible is a good thing, or that the unbroken beauty of nature on Earth is a good thing and should be weighed in the balance of preservation when compared to the human race. Why would you assume it is good? In the universal, objective view that we are taking, we have to base our values on what is worth keeping on human subjectivity, ie. "Nature is beautiful to human eyes, and therefore we should consider sacrificing the human race to preserve it". But in reality, that's a meaningless observation unless humans are actually around to make it. Without humans, or human-level consciousness, around, what's to say the nature of Earth should still be there? We can't appreciate it, therefore it is meaningless.

 

*slowly claps*

 

We aren't there to appreciate it, therefore it has no use?
Thats a bit of a shitty idea in my opinion. Just because we humans as a species aren't there to witness something doesn't diminish its use or meaning, and doesn't give us the right to kill it to preserve our own. Life had meaning way before humans decided to happen and fuck up stuff, life will have meaning way after the sun dies and we all are gone, even if there is no human to witness it.
Sure, maybe in the sense of "the strongest should survive" the sacrifice of the strongest in favour of the weak isn't quite the natural way, but should we not try to live more in symbiosis with the planet that keeps us alive rather than treat it like prey - living off it instead of with it?
And anyway, continuing on from the point you made, that what is the use of great beauty if no one is there to witness it. What is the point of a human that has the power to witness and appreciate beauty when all beauty has been destroyed in the process of keeping the observer alive?

 

So you two have two different points of view:
1. We humans are the virus, and the planet is the bacteria. We will all die anyway.
2. Beauty on earth is defined by "human eyes". Without humans the planet is meaningless.

1.1. That may be true, but what point of earth and life itself?
2.1. Viruses also enjoy its' host. Does that mean viruses are good?

Is there any common answer to this?

 

The most important turning point in human history will happen within this century: superintelligent artificial intelligence. I'm not even kidding, there's a good article here: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html