What would happen to earth if humans vanished?

[BlueFire]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762077/site/newsweek/

Good read.

[GameMaster]

A fascinating and at the same time daunting thought.

Wouldn't it be scary if some extremists carried this out with a virus that would wipe us out?

[Dylflon]

Yeah, we pretty much wreck everything up.

[Professor S]

Ah, humanity as a disease... how trite. I'm always shocked how environmentalists seem to forget that human beings are a natural part of Earth's environment. Lower life forms are not "pure" and we do not "taint" them. They use their environment just like we do. Beaver's build dams, carnivores eat other animals, the world turns and goes on.

My favorite part is how nice they assume everyone thinks a world without humans would be wonderful. How is that wonderful? WE DON'T EXIST. Besides, how an Weisman be so sure about how the world would be without us? We have great impact on this planet and on other species. Assuming vrything would simply fall back into balance assumes that the other animals won't assume new power roles in this new humanless world.

We are not on this planet to serve this planet. We are here to thrive and flourish, and the best way towards this goal is to conserve the planets resources for our own uses and survival, not simply because the earth is inherently "better" without us. These idiotic notions of "everyone agree to have one kid, OK? That cool? Great, deal." need to be exposed for what they are: Nonsense.

[Dylflon]

Hey guys, Professor S thinks humanity is A-OK!





What a flippin eco-terrorist!

[Professor S]

What a flippin eco-terrorist!

I love that term. Such incredible color and hyperbole to describe something that doesn't exist. There are no humans who are trying to get what they want from the world by "terrorizing" it. The planet cannot experience fear. It is not self-aware.

And did you even read what I wrote? I believe in conservation and balance. We need to conserve this planet's resources, and all its resources, including oil, coal, air, water, wood, stone, etc. These are all resources we need to exist. Without this planet humans don't exist, and I apologize if this is policially incorrect, but I like existing. I suppose that makes me some evil, nature hating monger. Earth is not inherently better or worse than we are. It has no idea of good and bad. It is a ball of rock, liquids and gasses that we live on. If we don't conserve it, we die. To me thats the best reason there is to take positive environmental action. Notice I say "positive" action.

This also doesn't translate into the need to "punish" humanity for its sins against mother earth. Thats simply childish nonsense. These anthropomorphic ideas of how pure the world is compared to humanity are rediculous. Listen to how you sound! "Eco-Terrorist"? What does that even mean? Do you know? Or are you just repeating some sound-byte friendly nonsense coined by another babbling fount of self-hatred?

Get past your anger and start thinking of logical, reasonable solutions to pollution. Force has never worked. Make people want to do their part by making it attractive, concevnient and affordable, and the populace will follow you.

Saying "One kid per couple"? That sounds wonderful, but it has the ame downfall as all other fundamentalist based concepts. They require massive amounts of dogamatic kool-aid that no one wants to drink.

I await your next 2-3 line answer that calls me another fictional insult.

[KillerGremlin]

A fascinating and at the same time daunting thought.

Wouldn't it be scary if some extremists carried this out with a virus that would wipe us out?

12 Monkeys

good movie, go see it!

[KillerGremlin]

It boils down to neccessity. If you subscribe to the religion thing we were pretty much put on earth to flourish and serve [interchangeable-super being].

If you want to look at ecosystems and nature....well, I don't think there's anything natural about driving cars and building nukes. The biggest problem we will face is overpopulation. Disease, famine and war will all be the result of overpopulation. On the plus side...once we become overpopulated, disease and famine (nature) will kill us off to even the tables. War is a man made thing, go man!

it's a cynical outlook, but i have faith that we will die and the earth will go back to its neutral state. that or the Apocalypse will take place. 2012 baby.

[Angrist]

I'm shocked that I would every say this ;), but I have to agree a bit with Strangler here. I also believe the Earth is here for us. I believe in a God who created it for us. He did tell us to take care of it though. But humanity dying would be pointless.

[Professor S]

It boils down to neccessity. If you subscribe to the religion thing we were pretty much put on earth to flourish and serve [interchangeable-super being].

If you want to look at ecosystems and nature....well, I don't think there's anything natural about driving cars and building nukes. The biggest problem we will face is overpopulation. Disease, famine and war will all be the result of overpopulation. On the plus side...once we become overpopulated, disease and famine (nature) will kill us off to even the tables. War is a man made thing, go man!

it's a cynical outlook, but i have faith that we will die and the earth will go back to its neutral state. that or the Apocalypse will take place. 2012 baby.

My ideas aren't religious based, more survival based. But once again, I people are failing to see that humans are a part of nature! If we are natural, then are fruits are born of natural process!

That doesn't mean that they're necessarily beneficial in the long run, but they are natural. We need to stop viewing things as natural or unnatural and start analyzing them in terms of long term benefit to mankind in all ways. It is there that I think all minds will come to decent, logical comprimises.

[KillerGremlin]

I agree. Although I'm a heartless bastard...but if it's going to be me, or some berries and a cow and that pond over there, I'll take me. Be it divine intervention or not, there's no denying that humans are a product of nature thus making us natural.

I always thought it would be cool to go live on some island in a bamboo hut enjoying campfires under the stars every night and being at one with nature. Then I got the internet. Oh well...maybe on my honeymoon.

[Typhoid]

For once - I agree 100% with everything Strangie said.


We, are humans. On the most basic of levels, we're animals. We are a natural part of this world. We're a natural part of evolution.

And on the most basic of levels, what does every animal need to do? Ensure the survival of it's species. How do you do that? Procreation and expansion.

We're just better at it than any other animal. We're not the top of the food chain one on one, but we're the top when it comes to surviving. One on one, a Lion would eat us. 100 on one, we'd fashion a trebuchet to hurl rocks at it from 50 feet away.

The point is, we are nature. We are natural. Anything, and everything we do, is natural, and why? Because we - humans - are natural, and thusly, everything we do is therefore technically a part of nature. Making nuclear plants is natural, because it's what we do as a species.

So if you want to get all pseudo-anacharistic on this, "destroying the planet" is natural, because it's what we do as a species.

We're not a virus, we're not a disease. We don't need to be wiped out, we don't need to understand more about our surroundings.

We need to fuck, and have babies.

It's so simple, that people need to add all these extra meanings to it - forgetting we're animals. Forgetting we're no better than a Zebra, when it comes to survival in the wilderness. We're not special, we're not fantastic. We just have bigger brains and opposable thumbs. We're not a cancer, we're nothing. We're a speck on the planet's timeline.

The planet will survive with or without us.

Realistically, it would be worse off without us.

If you remove the main component from any ecosystem, there is a major flux in - well, everything. We are keeping alive species that (ultimately we killed) are prey for other species. If we leave, so does conservation. There will be a major imbalance in the ecosystem, causing a mass extinction, leaving the world to the plants.

[KillerGremlin]

i for one will be getting my flamethrower out tonight and ravaging the forest! bambi here i come!

[manasecret]

The point is, we are nature. We are natural. Anything, and everything we do, is natural, and why? Because we - humans - are natural, and thusly, everything we do is therefore technically a part of nature. Making nuclear plants is natural, because it's what we do as a species.

I invite you to take a look here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thusly). Grammar Nazi -- AWAAAAAAAAY!!

Oh and I agree with the Strangler and Typhoid, though I'm too busy reading Harry Potter to flesh out the details (HP--->bittorrent). Though for those out there that can't swallow the "we're no better than animals" pill, I like to say, "animals are just as good as humans." I like the positive twist of that.

[Teuthida]

Humans are weeds. They might be natural but they multiple far too fast and over take everything. I hate chimps as well.

[Bond]

What a flippin eco-terrorist!
Haha.

Anyway, whether or not we're here to serve the Earth or our own selfish endeavors seems up for debate to me, but I do believe we, as humans, are here to help eachother. And perhaps in our efforts to help our own kind we must also help the environment, animals, etc. Really a win-win for everyone involved.

But the insinuation that animals would be better off without us seems ridiculous to me. Didn't these people watch Planet Earth? The majority of all animals (unless they're domesticated... by humans!) live a life of prolonged suffering. They spend their entire time finding food, reproducing and raising their young. Fortunately for us, we were able to break past that mold. Perhaps many humans are still living a life of suffering, but it seems to me the majority of us are not, and that has to be a good thing.

[Teuthida]

The majority of all animals (unless they're domesticated... by humans!) live a life of prolonged suffering. They spend their entire time finding food, reproducing and raising their young.

Er...but that's what life is: suffering.

Many people do exactly that as well. You do a modified version. Though you might not seek out food directly, you work for a paycheck to buy your food to survive, reproduce, and raise young.

Seems foolish to think without humans animals would have it rough. One less thing to worry about for most of them. The ultimate predator would be gone.

[Bond]

Er...but that's what life is: suffering.
Hmm... I feel as though we are now entering into a moral/religious component of the question. I do not believe the life of a human must be a life of suffering. I do not consider my life to be a life of suffering. I think our ability to have food and shelter readily available to us through our own ingenuity has, in a sense, freed us from a life of suffering. But I suppose, the animal also does not know its life to be a life of suffering, as it knows no better.

[Teuthida]

You, as are most Americans and others in industrialized countries, are pretty lucky. There are far more people who have it bad than have it good. There are also humans who cause needless suffering for other humans...but yeah guess this is getting off topic.

Animals hunt to survive. Many people do the same. People who hunt for fun confuse me. Why do that when food is readily available? For the thrill? Then I have to wonder if animals get a thrill out of catching their prey. Surely they must. Adrenaline flowing, knowing that their stomach will be full.

[Professor S]

You, as are most Americans and others in industrialized countries, are pretty lucky. There are far more people who have it bad than have it good. There are also humans who cause needless suffering for other humans...but yeah guess this is getting off topic.

I think our sense of "having it good" is kind of skewed by our affluence. In natural terms it doesn't mean that Africans have it bad because they don't have a plasma screen TV. Compared to animals, most humans do "have it good". Not because of the luxury of technological conveniences, oir even a normal healthy diet, but because of the biological luxuries of love, friendship, other emotions and recreational sex (we share that trait only with dolphins). These are luxuries that were brought on by convenience, really. Agriculture allowed us to develop in this way.

Compared to many animals, even the most oppressed Africans "have it good". You'll know when they don't anymore when multiple children are the norm with each pregnancy. Then humans will be reproducing just to keep numbers up.

By the way, I'm in no way defending the oppression of African people. Lets not take that assinine leap of logic, thank you.

Animals hunt to survive. Many people do the same. People who hunt for fun confuse me. Why do that when food is readily available? For the thrill? Then I have to wonder if animals get a thrill out of catching their prey. Surely they must. Adrenaline flowing, knowing that their stomach will be full.

I'm a former hunter, and I have to say that unless you've hunted, killed, gutted and ate what you hunted... you'll never understand. There is something very... natural about the whole process. If I could describe it, I would say it was the only time I truly understood my place in the world; the only time I took ownership of my nature and what it is we truly are.

We are, by nature, omnivores. We eat meat and are genetically predisposed to eating meat. If you don't agree with me, just look at your teeth, especially the pointy ones. Plus most experts think our appendix was originally used to help digest raw meat, and cooking made it obsolete.

Hunting helped me understand out place in nature. You're not buying prepackaged chicken or cow parts... you're killing the animal, gutting it, skinning it and butchering it before you every see it in a state reminiscent of a supermarket value pack. You are taking ownership of your carnivorous nature. Not only that, you better understand that these animals are not simply foodstuffs, but living breathing parts of the world, and by killing them for your meal, you gain appreciation for them and their role in it, as well as yours.

But once again, I am a former hunter. I have nothing against it, but like Ron White said:

"Its early, its cold, and I don't wanna fuckin' go."

But I feel better for having hunted.

[Teuthida]

The point is that you don't have to hunt to maintain your sustenance though. I can imagine how hunting made you see your place within nature. I myself am a vegetarian so far in that I would only eat meat if I killed the animal I was consuming.

Even with convenience people can suffer. The more luxuries one has, the less meaning their life might have. To hunt to survive gives meaning to the struggle one endures. People actually like working though they might constantly complain about it. They need to keep occupied. Goes along with the whole money doesn't bring happiness scenario. One needs more than instant gratification to enjoy their life. Could that be why you felt better for have hunted?

Would a caged animal who receives regular meals have a more fulfilling life than one in the wild who has to work for their food? You can't compare many animals to humans in the same way. Many don't have as deep emotions as humans, or any at all for that matter. And as mentioned even fewer engage in sex purely for pleasure. (I think bonobos do as well.)

Even before humans became "civilized" and were as natural as one could be, they still hunted animals to extinction. Mammoths anyone? The point is that in this day in age humans can fix the mistakes they've made during their existence and try to live on this planet with nature instead of further destroying it. The Earth is but one rock with some living things on it which will eventually disappear all together...but it would be nice if the beings on it, humans and others, could maintain it in a manner until that day comes.