Political Crossfire Forums

xsuite · Joined: 02 Mar 2006 Posts: 688 Location: The Colonies (USA)

The Article Below
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225731.100

If Human beings were exticnt Would that negatively impact the earth? Why or why not?

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

No, I don't see how it could be negative. Short-term I would imagine it would do some odd/disruptive things but long-term it would be beneficial.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

Positive in what way? The only morally important things gone would be a negative. I don't see how no humans around would ever be a positive things. Human life is the most important thing on this planet.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

John Galt wrote: Positive in what way? The only morally important things gone would be a negative. I don't see how no humans around would ever be a positive things. Human life is the most important thing on this planet.

john, get with the program.

only animals are important. humans are second best.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2569

John Galt wrote: Positive in what way? The only morally important things gone would be a negative. I don't see how no humans around would ever be a positive things. Human life is the most important thing on this planet.

Why?

Josh · Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 6646 Location: Across America

Quote: Positive in what way? The only morally important things gone would be a negative. I don't see how no humans around would ever be a positive things. Human life is the most important thing on this planet.

Again, how can we even be slightly morally important if we obviously can't clean up after ourselves?

When John's mother said, "clean up your room." he would say, "can't you see how important I am! God, woman, you're always worried about my room, let me form my morals!"

And, to the topic at hand... a few 100 years of human inactivity would benefit the Earth and allow it to regenerate and grow. I think some of the estimations are off but, for the most part the gist of it is a good guess.

I doubt methane would disappear and some of the treated wood would last a lot longer than 200 years. (In some cases concrete would collapse before the wood.) The chemistry of the article was a little off. I liked the part about studying Chernobyl... ...there's a program in the works here to export some of the ecologists to the region to join in the research there.

In the end, it'd be ideal to just allow Earth some "vacation" time and return to it after a century or two.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

Blinky wrote: John Galt wrote: Positive in what way? The only morally important things gone would be a negative. I don't see how no humans around would ever be a positive things. Human life is the most important thing on this planet.

Why?

Because only moral creatures are morally important.

MplsBison · Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 3380

xsuite wrote:

If Human beings were exticnt Would that negatively impact the earth?

This question is an engima.

If there were no human beings, then who would be left to define "negative"?

Sure, things would change.

So what? Things are always changing.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject:

Humans are just another life form on this great planet. We will not live forever, but the Earth will continue to exist.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Infinite911911 wrote: Humans are just another life form on this great planet. We will not live forever, but the Earth will continue to exist.

until the sun explodes.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

The Comrade wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: Humans are just another life form on this great planet. We will not live forever, but the Earth will continue to exist.

until the sun explodes.

And thelast black hole consumes itslef and collapses into perhaps a tiny ball of all the mass of the universe and then maybe goes off in a big bang...

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Blinky wrote: John Galt wrote: Positive in what way? The only morally important things gone would be a negative. I don't see how no humans around would ever be a positive things. Human life is the most important thing on this planet.

Why?

Because I'm human 8:)

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:50 am Post subject:

Amazing, this is almost exactly what me and a buddy of mine were talking about several times a few months ago. He is convinced that in, say, 10,000 years, there would be no way to tell that we were ever here. He said it is possible we were at this point before, at this level of advancement we are at now, perhaps even greater, but something wiped us out. I said we would be able to tell if we had reached this level of advancement, because something would be left over.

So who is right? If we all just blinked out of existence right now, In 10,000 years, would a civilization be able to tell that we were even here? Would huge buildings like the Sears Tower still be at least partially in tact, so that it would demonstrate technological advancement, or would it be completely gone. Cars, marble buildings, computers? Would you be able to tell?

And yes, I think the Earth would obviously benefit from us being gone. That is obvious. We are damaging the earth, and doing nothing good for it. How could it possibly hurt the Earth if we left? It obviously would have no negative effects, only good ones, as far as the physical planet goes. With that being said, I'm glad we're here. The Earth will just have to deal with it.

Josh · Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 6646 Location: Across America

I concur with Grandmaster, the Earth has to deal with it. However, I like to get up and hug motherearth and the trees and frolick with butterflys. It's grand. I've even dry humped a few shrubs. My wife hates when I get drunk.

It would take more than 10,000 years for evidence of us to disappear. However if the whole Earth was at one time "roasted" it could be possible. I'm still learning this stuff though.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:14 am Post subject:

The Grandmaster wrote:
And yes, I think the Earth would obviously benefit from us being gone. That is obvious. We are damaging the earth, and doing nothing good for it. How could it possibly hurt the Earth if we left? It obviously would have no negative effects, only good ones, as far as the physical planet goes. With that being said, I'm glad we're here. The Earth will just have to deal with it.

Why can't we have it both ways? Why do we seem not to care that we are killing our only home and every animal in it, including ourselves? Humans do not own the earth, we are merely guests in it. Our goal should be to live as one with the earth, not destory it.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:40 am Post subject:

Infinite911911 wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
And yes, I think the Earth would obviously benefit from us being gone. That is obvious. We are damaging the earth, and doing nothing good for it. How could it possibly hurt the Earth if we left? It obviously would have no negative effects, only good ones, as far as the physical planet goes. With that being said, I'm glad we're here. The Earth will just have to deal with it.

Why can't we have it both ways? Why do we seem not to care that we are killing our only home and every animal in it, including ourselves? Humans do not own the earth, we are merely guests in it. Our goal should be to live as one with the earth, not destory it.

I tend to agree we do more to damage the Earth that is necessary. It seems not many people agree with me. In today’s world, if you speak about conservation and protection of the earth and things of this nature, you’ll get labeled a “tree hugging democrat” or a “whiney liberal.” Or something else that intends to have a negative connotation to it. When you see the giant corporations and smokestacks belching smoke and acid into the air, hordes of people come to the rescue in defense of this inanimate building in the name of profit when someone wants to put restrictions on the amount of pollution they can puke out. To live the life we have now, some of this is going to be necessary. But I believe it doesn’t have to be as much destruction and ruination as there is. But if protecting the Earth is a good thing, why do so many people see those that would do so as people to be laughed at, and insulted?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

Infinite911911 wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
And yes, I think the Earth would obviously benefit from us being gone. That is obvious. We are damaging the earth, and doing nothing good for it. How could it possibly hurt the Earth if we left? It obviously would have no negative effects, only good ones, as far as the physical planet goes. With that being said, I'm glad we're here. The Earth will just have to deal with it.

Why can't we have it both ways? Why do we seem not to care that we are killing our only home and every animal in it, including ourselves? Humans do not own the earth, we are merely guests in it. Our goal should be to live as one with the earth, not destory it.

Who owns it then? Someone has to. First person to homestead it sold the land and so on and so forth. I now own my land I have the title to prove it. And I'd defend mine and my own. I don't see how making the world a better place for humanity is "destroying it." The world is a better place with more and more humans and better and better technology.

If you want to reject humanity (and all his greatness which includes his technology and his changing of the enviornment around him to his will), fine. Perhaps you could start with selling your computer and then moving into a hobbit-home in Montana with no electrictiy where you could become one with nature, leaving no legacy for anyone or anything. It'd be like you never existed.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Infinite911911 wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
And yes, I think the Earth would obviously benefit from us being gone. That is obvious. We are damaging the earth, and doing nothing good for it. How could it possibly hurt the Earth if we left? It obviously would have no negative effects, only good ones, as far as the physical planet goes. With that being said, I'm glad we're here. The Earth will just have to deal with it.

Why can't we have it both ways? Why do we seem not to care that we are killing our only home and every animal in it, including ourselves? Humans do not own the earth, we are merely guests in it. Our goal should be to live as one with the earth, not destory it.

Of course we own the earth. We have the power to own the earth, therefore we own it. That said, of course we should take care of the earth. It makes no sense to pollute your own house.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

perdidochas wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
And yes, I think the Earth would obviously benefit from us being gone. That is obvious. We are damaging the earth, and doing nothing good for it. How could it possibly hurt the Earth if we left? It obviously would have no negative effects, only good ones, as far as the physical planet goes. With that being said, I'm glad we're here. The Earth will just have to deal with it.

Why can't we have it both ways? Why do we seem not to care that we are killing our only home and every animal in it, including ourselves? Humans do not own the earth, we are merely guests in it. Our goal should be to live as one with the earth, not destory it.

Of course we own the earth. We have the power to own the earth, therefore we own it. That said, of course we should take care of the earth. It makes no sense to pollute your own house.

We wasn't talking about pollution, he was talking about "being one with the earth." Which would mean denying our nature of moral rational beings and return to a state of animalistic amoral irrationality. The Return to the Garden, in other words.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:30 am Post subject:

The Grandmaster wrote:
I tend to agree we do more to damage the Earth that is necessary. It seems not many people agree with me. In today’s world, if you speak about conservation and protection of the earth and things of this nature, you’ll get labeled a “tree hugging democrat” or a “whiney liberal.” Or something else that intends to have a negative connotation to it. When you see the giant corporations and smokestacks belching smoke and acid into the air, hordes of people come to the rescue in defense of this inanimate building in the name of profit when someone wants to put restrictions on the amount of pollution they can puke out. To live the life we have now, some of this is going to be necessary. But I believe it doesn’t have to be as much destruction and ruination as there is. But if protecting the Earth is a good thing, why do so many people see those that would do so as people to be laughed at, and insulted?

Well, I’m sure you know I’m not a “whiney liberal”. That is also something I never understood. What’s so wrong about wanting a clean, healthy Earth? We can have it both ways, yet we choose not to? We can live in with everything we have now and much less pollution yet we don’t and because of that we are feeling the consequences. And one day it will be a lot worst.