Serious Balance Of The Nature

1.0. Never said planet is the bacteria, the planet is the host.

See it like this, the planet is a great big factory, over time it produces goods, and the many species on it are like little workers all doing something that helps them survive, and in turn helps the other workers in some way. (E.g Plants reproduce by pollen, bees will distribute it, and at the same time feed themselves etc.). Humans, being the most developed species and the top of the food chain, are kore like the factory owner. The factory owner does fuckall and lets the others work in his factory, and reaps all the benefits.
Either the factory owner could try and have a nice factory, with good conditions, which allows all species in the factory to live happily with little interference from the owner, or the owner could try to maximize profits by harvesting all possible resources from the planet for short term profits, but in the end probably making the factory go bust. Currently we are on the "short term profit" pathway, the pathway that allows us to compare ourselves with a virus, and the pathway that, while giving humans the possibility to develop at a massive pace, will also be the end of the factory, leading to the inevitable bankruptcy of the factory owner as the planet crumbles beneath us.

________________________________

1.1. I really have no idea what the meaning of life and earth is. I do however know that life is something important, something every animal, everything, only has one of and shouldn't be wasted, ended before its time, or impaired by anything, such as human meddling.
Sure, i regard human life just the same way, that it shouldn't simply be ended, but i don't think the preservation of a life excuses the destruction of other lives - no matter what species.

 

I believe that all life was a result of a chemical reaction that resulted in a self copying bunch of molecules we chose to call "life". it wasn't part of a divine plan, it wasn't by chance, it just was. when you look deeper you will see that we also have no free will, our decisions are a direct output of chemical reactions happening in our body. but it is a bit scary to think that we don't have a free will, and we don't know all the components or the outputs for the reactions so we introduce an unknown factor, chance, will, god, choice.
the point is, life was and life is, it just exists. as a single "being" and as a specie we want to discover as much of the universe as we can and we are willing to do everything for that that doesn't risk the continuing of us as a specie. we don't care for other species because we don't need them, currently that is. to back up our plan to discover as much as we can we made gene banks and the international seed vault in Norway which houses 4,000 species and 840,000 samples. we are slowly backing up our plants and there are some places that started making backups of animals. we are going to discover and explore as much as we can and we aren't going to let anything stand in our way.
the order of laws is quite simple there is one law which you aren't allowed to break and then tiers of laws:
1) the humans must survive as a specie

2.1) the humans must research/learn (as long as this doesn't break #1)
2.2) the humans must grow as a specie (as long as this decision doesn't break #1 and #2)
2.3) the humans must evolve as a specie (as long as this doesn't break #1 and #2)

3.1) all humans must survive (as long as this doesn't break #1 #2 #3)
3.2) no humans will get hurt (as long as this doesn't break #1 #2 #3)
3.3) all humans must evolve (as long as this doesn't break #1 #2 #3)
3.4) all humans must learn (as long as this doesn't break #1 #2 #3)

the goal justifies the means, we are able and we should use the plant's resources to their full potential (while keeping these laws in mind) so we can learn new ways to learn.

 

I feel like this is an anime reference.

 

that's actually a very common saying in Hebrew, "המטרה מקדשת את האמצעים" literaly means the goal justifies(holyfies?) the means.

 

I swear, you're going through a phase in your life right now.

 

That's a good continuation of the point. We need to find a balance between having beauty (in terms of nature etc.) enough to appreciate, and having consciousness enough to do the appreciating. Currently, we may well be pushing that boundary.

But I also feel like your statement that life had meaning before humans existed is debateable. Where does meaning come from, that's what we have to ask ourselves, and to me it doesn't seem like it can be created without some kind of intelligence to do so. The universe has not thought or emotion, and no way to create an emotional feeling such as meaning or appreciation by itself. This was my original point anyway - I don't actually hold that we shouldn't worry about destroying everything just because it won't matter in the end.

It's not phase, this is the real me! *Sulks in the corner whilst listening to My Chemical Romance*

 

That's exactly why we should care, we want things to matter, that's why we want us and everything else to survive. If nothing will matter in the end what have we done with our lives? With our existence?
There are two ways to solve that problem. One is to make sure that there will be no end, if nothing matters in the end and we delay the end them everything before the end can matter, including us. The second way is to actually matter, to find how everything works, a complete understanding of the universe. Either way we will finish the game the question is that will we set a highscore or will we fade of the face of existence.

 

If the law of a species states that all of the species must survive (point 3) as well as specifically that no humans should get hurt - seing that we are the same species (3.2), then how have we been allowed to create wars? If these are the fundamental laws of being allowed to stay as a human species then we have already broken them.

If anything then an anime just "quoted" from just about a shit ton of books :P

Still, if life - and anything really - has no point unless it can be seen by the human eye or be perceived by humans in any way, why are there beautiful flowers deep in forests where no one will ever see them? Obviously things have a meaning even without the existence of humans, otherwise nothing would have existed before humans and everything - once in existence - would be fully human cooperative if you assume the universe is there for human perception.
And anyway, does the meaning of life being "to look good for the humans" not seem to be a little well.. self centered?
And even if you argued everything pre-human was made so that everything was ready for the human perception by the time we happened to evolve, there is no reason why it shouldn't be fully adapted to our needs as human. I don't know, wifi emitting plants that look like beautiful rainbows?

If the point of life itself is to be appreciated by the human mind - what now? Now that it has been perceived by the human mind it has managed its life goal - THE life goal, and now it can just... die? If so you contradict yourself. If the ultimate goal was to be perceived by man, everything already seen has managed this and there is no reason for it to be kept.

 

Mass human death is good. Extinction is bad. All of the problems you cite vanish with a manageable population, but any loss of diversity is a critical hit to already suffering ecosystems.

 

wars generate a time of quick technological advancement (2.1) they also unite great masses of land and people thus enabling farther growth of the specie (2.2) and in specific cases the future evolution of the species (2.3). so according to the laws wars are perfectly ok, in fact, not going to war would be against the laws.
I may have to introduce a patch to the rules.

 

Everything that prevents overgrowth is good. Technically anti-war organizations are the most putrid thinkable ways of killing humans xD

 

This is a fun thread.

________________________________

In biology classes last year we used to discuss about the population and how it is way too high - exponential growth etc.
Someone always mentioned throwing a bomb on one of the asian countries.

 

Here's the problem about your "Humanity should go kill itself" statement, Francis.
If you're truly wishing humanity's extinction, you better be ready to dig your own grave and hang yourself over it because "extinction" means that the last individual of an entire species has been snuffed out. Even if you're dead, you'll never truly know it that changed anything.
Church's statement from the Season 13 finale of Red vs. Blue mirrors this view. He says that the Hero sacrifices himself to save people and of course that happens, but the Hero never gets to see that ending, because in the end, all he does is hope. So if you really want the extinction of humans, hoping is the worst thing that will ever happen to you.

Quoting Church's final words: "Ain't that a bitch."

 

If the race dies out naturally, slowly, then it's neither good nor bad. For man kind to have lived long enough to naturally go extinct, then the major issues that would prevent that must have been solved. Once we where gone, it would have been long enough that it would be like we were never here.

If the race wipes it's self out, then it also is neither good nor bad, because if we do that, there will be nothing left living to benefit/ suffer duo our extinction. Earth become indistinguishable from the majority of planets that populate the solar system, an oversized rock orbiting a sun. It would return to what it used to be before there was life on the planet. Who knows, maybe it would be able to start anew.

Another way we could go extinct that I'm not seeing on here is if we evolve. The specific species of primate we came from no longer exist and is thus extinct, the mammal that primate evolved from no longer exist and is thus extinct. Eventually, the same will happen to humanity. Overtime, a very, very long time, humanity will become extinct because the species has now evolved past that stage. The next evolution will have come from us, but will not be us, not human as we think now, thus the human race becoming extinct. Again, this is neither good nor bad, as there is still something there with its own issues.

 

Would human extinction be beneficial to the planet as a whole ?
Probably Yes, even though the colpase of human-made structure would be very destructive, the amount of damage it would do is no near the damage that humans resource consumption and wars would do in the long run.
HOWEVER I do not think that human extinction is a good thing mainly because of the fact that I'm myself a human, saying that you think human extinction is good is like saying that you would sucrfic yourself, your family and everyone else's life for the sake of "animals and plants".

 

For omar:

________________________________

There are several ways of looking at this case. We humans strive to find our point of living. While we do so we disturb other species along the way. This is where the biggest question pops up. Are we humans here for any reason? If so, why?
Then there is an argument about us dying making no difference for us, but a good difference for everything else; "Preservation of own species at the cost of others."
It will take too long to quote and write about all points of views, but you could summarize it in:
•People who want humans to survive
•People who want humans to die

There is obviously no real answer to this question no matter how you look at it. There are always some cons and pros with the philosophical theories that we post here; the hardest one being: "What is the meaning of life?"

Starting on another discussion based around the topic:

This sure is an exension from the previous discussion. We will probably end up with the samr conclusion as previously, but I believe that this problem has something that relates closer to an answer.

How do we deal with human population?

 

The hero sacrifices himself to save people, but the hero never sees the happy end.
Ok, fair enough, the hero does not know for certain whether the ending he foresaw will actually come into an effect. Im not sure what context that quote is in - never seen Red vs. Blue - but either way, the hero has sacrificed himself for something he believes. He believes that what he is doing is right, that what he is doing will have the presumed outcome, and, assuming the hero isnt stupid, he has a real reason to believe the outcome is the one he is trying to achieve.
As for the "go hang yourself" statement. Yes, extinction means every individual. And yes i realise that means me as well. However a single individual killing himself will have no significant impact, and would therefore be a waste. Therefore, no, im not gonna go hang myself up just like that unless a significant amount of others would agree to do the same.

1. If the race dies out naturally.
Assuming humans die out naturally - for example via natural disease that has developed immune suppression and is drug resistant - the direct impacts of mankind on the planet will slowly decrease, and, assuming that nothing humans have created will last forever, the planet will slowly return to the non-human state it was before we started destroying it. Of course if the thing that wipes us out is not a human specific disease, or, i dunno, a species that out-competes humans, or a natural disaster, that will obviously be less beneficial to the planet.

2. If the race kills itself.
Apart from creating something that kills us (AKA the disease from point 1) there are only 2 ways i can think of how the human race manages to kill itself. Either we get together a world war 3 and slowly bomb each other to death until the radiation has killed the last of us, or we use up all the resources on Earth before developing sufficient space travel, and slowly die from dehydration or starvation as the world turns to dust around us. The first option - poisoning the atmosphere with radiation and whatever else we decide to put in our bombs, will obviously not be good for the planet. Maybe the light show would be nice to watch but after that nearly everything will die. The latter option is only marginally better - only species adapted to live in dust planet environments would be able to cope, maybe salt water marine life that has adapted to warm waters. Either way its not a favourable situation for the planet. And should all those species be lost in the struggle to preserve humanity, just so that humanity dies later on and pmaybe - just maybe - the planet may recover?

3. Death by evolution
Unless homo-sapiens evolve to be beings non-needing of earthly needs such as food, water, etc. and do not harm the environment with anything they create, i really dont see evolution coming in to save the day. Evolution is the "survival of the fittest", slow evolution by natural selection. For evolution to happen one part of the population must have a genetic mutation that somehow makes this part better suited to survive and/or have offspring - however in today's society the only real preferred traits are to be good looking and to be rich. As neither of these preferred traits seem to help the environment (in case of being rich - the opposite effect) i doubt that there will be any solutions from that end.

I think ive made my point clear enough what should happen to the humans :D
Preferably in a non-environmental damaging way. A disease, like described above, would obviously do the trick, however mutation might be a problem.

________________________________

Humans are no relevant factor in any ecosystem - humans are at the top of the food chain and eat mainly what we "produce" ourselves, by farming or breeding. The only animal populations that would take a hit are farm animals, pets, or any animals that rely on cities as an environment to survive, most of which have a massive population anyway and/or could easily relocate.

 

meh just move to keplar 438b after we destroy earth

i mean, you are not planning to fix global warming are you?

 

This is too objective, fran ;-;
Where is the discussion
(@Yuno F Gasai halp)

 

Well, this is an interesting topic. I believe that it's pointless to try and say that human extinction is good or bad for Earth, because in the end, it really doesn't matter. Either way, the end of life on earth was ensured the moment life was first created on earth; either way, the sun will swallow the earth, and earth's core will solidify, destroying the magnetic field that protects us, and dooming life as we know it. HOWEVER, I will state my idea: humans, assuming we don't go extinct, might be vital for life on earth. Now we're getting into speculation. Let's say that humanity decided to leave earth. It would be more than likely that we would bring as many specimens of life on earth as possible as we head into interstellar space. In that way, humanity would be beneficial in the long run. However, humanity's future really depends on one event that will happen soon: the creation of true, hyper intelligent AI, and whether or not it will help us or attack us. If it helps us create a better world, than I say that humanity shouldn't go extinct, as the 'Noah's ark' scenario would probably happen then. If it attacks us, humanity is better off dead, seeing as how we link a LOT of military weapons to technology, and a lot of that tech could cause a lot of collateral damage (like the thousands of nukes still lying around). Either way, this is just my two cents on this idea.

________________________________

either way, considering around 99.99% of all life on earth went extinct, it really doesn't matter talking about this, because humanity as we know it WILL go extinct. there is no "if"; evolution still effects us.