Serious Balance Of The Nature

I saw that the thread got revived, but until yesterday I was extremely busy so I could only view this through mobile which makes it a pain in the butt to read/wriye long paragraphs.

 

Extremely simple yet serious answer time:
It would be really bad for us to go extinct, because all the buildings and factories and everything humanity has built will crumble, as from some building, extremely toxic chemicals will seep into the soil. Without us to prevent this or solve the problem, the plants die, then the herbivores, and then everything else.
It's also not very good for us to be here, because without us, all those dangerous factories and pollution and cities and stuff wouldn't be here in the first place. We're slowly ruining the planet and unless everyone joins together, we aren't going to stop.
The worst part is that there is no healthy compromise to this. So if he planet is slowly dying, we'd might as well hold that off as long as possible, preserve what we have, and enjoy our time here, right?

Even shorter and not serious answer time:
If humans went extinct I wouldn't have anyone to play Wynncraft with ;c

 

Human Extinction? Yep... Too much people perform abusive or horrible things such as pollution, corruption, rape, murder, stealing, trafficking, etc...

I wonder... Why are we created... Maybe someone omnipotent (God :P) wanted us to experience happiness and pleasure like him; that pleasure went too far and thus, people started committing sins just for their own benefit

 

Those toxins are not enough to destroy the planet permanently. The ones who are are the humans living here.
If you wanna treat cancer, you need to remove it by all means. Or else the cancer will kill you. This is reffered from one of @Francis12qwasyx 's paragraphs on this thread.
Once humans are gone, there might be heavy damage at first, but things will stabilize and all other (surviving) life forms will have room to evolve freely without us humans "helping" them.

Are you using "god" as a symbol, or are you telling us "god" did all of this? xD
After what I know, humand live on pure instinct, which is pure ego. We value ourselves over all. We do anything in order to give ourselves goods.
Isn't this reason enough to limit our ego? This ego of ours affects everyone (and everything) surrounding it. If humans died out, I assure that everything would go back to normal.

 

Ah yes, humans will go extinct because of rape and corruption /s

 

I mean we could shut down all the nuclear power plants and secure the toxins before giving ourselves the bullet if we go extinct by choice but fair point i guess - humans vanishing would cause short term chaos before things start to normalize.

 

what he said

________________________________

I dont understand... Everyone are talking about "saving lives" and "curing cancer". When we see it from the perspective of nature, we are the villains, not the nature. We are trying to avoid death for as long as possible. Therefore nature creates another way of flatting our population out: ourselves. If humans were meant to live in peace and harmony for eternity, we would not have this thing called "emotions" implanted into our head-muscle. Those emotions drive our ego and love for each other. This is a bad thing. While some of us live in wealth, a bigger percentage lives on scraps from the rich. This is not what you call justice. The population grows, and we expect a better life. We leach recourses, we farm animals (other than humans), we kill each other for personal gain, and we expect it to be "alright".
For everyone but commoners, wealthy people and tunnel-visioners, it's common sense that many, if not all of us die a quick death.

 

Please, a few "philosophical" 12 year old's aren't going to find an answer to this non-existent question. How about we ask some different questions to get to the "answer", and by answer I mean fact. If you do agree humans should become extinct are you:
a) A nihilist?
b) Crazy?
c) Human?

Chances are, you fit into at least one of these categories! And you know what, if you really are a human as you think, than unless you are perfect and have transcended the basic human state to become a perfectly balanced individual who is completely selfless, you want to live on! Another question to continue my point: Do you believe in life after death? Many people aren't religious but still believe in some life after death, ie: Heaven/Hell, paradise, reincarnation, etc. Do you know why some atheists believe in this? It's simple, it's because humans love themselves, I absolutely adore every part of me, and I think you rather like yourself as well, ergo humans come up with this concept of living on after death because they think they are so important that they cannot accept the very concept of being gone, forever.

To lead this back to the "question" at hand, no of course not! As explained in my last paragraph, humans would rather like to be alive. After all every organisms purpose on Earth is to survive to an optimum age and reproduce, us humans are exactly the same, exactly. But a long while ago they realized they did not in fact have the IQ of a cashew. So they tossed in a few extra things into this life thing. Things such as entertainment! Do you see camels playing poker? No of course not, this is because they do not desire entertainment constantly as humans do, sure, they like companionship and friends in some cases (eg: cows) you may say. But companionship is a basic part of survival, eg: wolves, they hunt in packs to survive more efficiently, one wolf can be scared off, but a pack, hohoho, they will kill you without fear. So again, back to the "question" at hand, humans deserve to survive just as much as any organism as they are fundamentally the same, aside from their need for entertainment, now their acquisition of entertainment seems to be the worry of most people here. So forwards we go!

The environment, you lot seem to care! First of all a quick stock check. In 179 years time at worst rates rainforests will be gone, note, at worst rates using current as an estimate, renewable technology is becoming much more advanced by the second, with China making leaps and bounds in wind turbines, producing a huge quantity each year. And you Zahr, your point bothered me, likely because it is now false:

I am bothered by what you have said about nuclear power, nuclear power is the future, huge amounts of energy and it's relatively clean. First of all lets talk about how little pollution it produces, none. No carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that heats up the Earth, but of course! Nuclear waste, who could forget that. The problem is you are all thinking 60's nuclear power, nuclear bombs and such so you all have the misconception it is guaranteed to kill us all. False, nuclear waste has become much safer. New reactors have been designed that output a fraction of the waste that was previously produced, secondly this waste only stays for years, not decades. And it's hardly radioactive anyway and stored in very safe locations! Albeit these reactors are not yet in function but they are close, very close, its been shown that they could work this well, a huge amount of power, infinitely advancing human technology. Even better those reactors are again, incredibly safe, they will definitely not explode and these are definitely maintained well, where did you get the idea that no one is keeping them safe? There are always people on site when they are operational to constantly maintain the reactor and shut it down if anything looks slightly out of place.

Human technology is taking leaps and bounds, there is no doubt at all that we will colonize other planets in this universe, it is just a question of when. For now the Earth will suffice for long enough for us to get out and spread human kind to the stars.

TL;DR: You are not philosophical, we are not screwed, we are doing just fine and we don't need unnecessary discussion over the matter.

 

wasnt trying to be philosophical, just expressing what I think

 

You are saying that we are just fine, and will be for all future? I agree with your points. I cannot deny any of them. That ideal future for humans is where we all live in peace and happiness.
There is one point you missed though. You talked about pollution and future technology that will help us, but there is a concern regarding that too. Overpopulation. Planet earth is big, but not infinite. As you yourself said, that we are like all other life forms. We have potential to live better than any other species because of our intelligence. Humans are able to reproduce exponentially because of how happy and safe we live. Any other species also reproduce based on living standards. Of course, we can start building upwards instead of outwards; underground etc. The problem is just that we will keep growing. In addition to that, there will not be enough resources in the end for us all. In conclusion, many will perish. The question is not if we should kill ourselves, but limit ourselves for the best of all. China recently removed their 1-child per family restriction. This is very scary...

 

ASAPscience made a whole video on this, they're conclusion: it would ultimately make a bunch of other species' die off.

 

In the end we will die too.

 

Well at the rate that technology is developing, we're most likely going to perfect space travel at some point, and then we can just fly to a different planet. *wink*

 

To do that, we'd need to break the formula for contained, efficient nuclear fusion. That would give us sustainable energy and long-distance space travel. Ironically, it'd mean we wouldn't need to go to another planet sooner.

 

Well I mean who is to say that cold fusion wont be perfected within the next 10 minutes? Literally anything is possible, and you never know what is out there. That is how I see it at least.

 

I'm gonna be direct: Yes, because all of the problems that have arisen (global warming, earthquakes, etc.), have been caused by us. Animals are going extinct because of us, we are using up the planet's resources faster than they can replenish, and the list goes on and on. So if we were out of the picture, it would actually be better for the world.

 

But if the UN's space defense program actually works (deflecting meteorites) and deflects one meteor we would have saved the earth's life forms and extended the existence of the earth's life. Of course it was achieved by killing and destroying countless species but we saved the rest, and more importantly, we saved ourselves.

 

Oh. I need to read the news more often.

 

Because almost all major scientific and technological breakthroughs occur over decades.

 

I love these philosophical topics. Here's what I think, and some of the views I've got.

We may think we have the fire power to wipe out all life on earth and ourselves, or completely change the face of the environment on our planet - and we are mostly wrong. It would probably go back to prehistoric sea life (because like 90% of life on land and sea is destroyed), and then evolution will happen over like 500 million years and we'll have another intelligent species roaming the earth.

The human race, is very, VERY unlikely to go extinct. Probably even impossible. Yes, there are those that think we are pointless and damaging to the Earth, but there are also those who hope to better themselves and the environment around them. Unless everyone becomes depressed or feels doomed, I highly doubt this will happen.

The destruction of the environment will fix itself - not only the fact that our morals are quickly changing, but also economically. It's actually becoming less efficient and cost-effective to burn fossil fuels than ever before, and the efficiency of renewables is sky-rocketing. Even if we stick to fossil fuels, the biggest problem we'd have is a world-wide crisis which will kill off many but the remaining would pick up the world on their feet.

The thing is, the exponential growth of humanity will actually cap and slow down and ultimately sit at a steady rate. They estimate it to be around 10 billion. Why? Because simple economics. A higher population means less resources to go around, and less resources means higher prices. Higher prices means supporting larger families will become more expensive, and hence families of probably only 1-2 children. If 1 child has been born from 2 parents, this means that the gross population decreases by 1 when the parents die. And therefore the population will begin to slow down. I don't think overpopulation is a problem, just something we need to manage.

So yeah, I'm pro-humanity, and everyone might think that the world is bad, but really it's such an amazing place. How amazing is it that we are the only intelligent living specimens within probably a 10 billion light year radius (maybe not, could be less)? How weird and wonderful are our senses? How does it even work? What is the smallest possible thing, and the biggest? Is there some greater being looking over us? So many cool things to wonder. And the destruction of the environment is really beefed up by the media. They only report on how there's this oil spill or there's a massive chunk of deforestation occurring, because it brings in viewers and makes them money (If anything, the only humans that deserve to die is the fucking media, like fuck sake with the isis thing). They don't report on the work done by so many people to combat climate change and save the environment, because its human nature to pay attention to danger, and its less interesting to talk about saving the world. So yeah.