Would The World Be a Better Place Without Human Existence?

1. 72

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   Hey Hubbers,
   
   It's irony that I post this because of the many threads talking about how the world would be without "religious" folk of all different types/forms of religion.
   
   So, would the world be better if Humans existence had never happened? Or if Humans would be extinct?
   
   Now, I know it's a ridiculous notion, but it seems as though the Earth would probably fix itself from all the human damage, draining of resources and many other things.
   
   However, I would also like to point out that IF humans became extinct, then eventually the world would still lose all it's resources, due to over population of animals which would eventually happen without human intervention.(this is just an observation based on what's known now)
   
   What do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      jennzieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, if there is such a thing as global warming, the process may slow down considerably if it is being caused by chemicals/pollutants being released into the atmosphere from factories, cars, etc.
      
      Also, animals would no longer be losing their habitats, as people would no longer be cutting down trees and destroying rainforests for the building of houses and businesses.
      
      Honestly I can only think of how the world would benefit if there were no humans around haha.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Okay. Thank you.

         replyreport
2. 74

   jainismusposted 12 years ago

   I think one benefit of world without human existence is that there will be no nations and wars.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, yes this is obvious.

      replyreport
3. 0

   mts1098posted 12 years ago

   How could you even measure better or worse without a human?  Even if you had somthing to make the determination there would be nothing to judge an opinion

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Just minus out humans and see how things would progress forward.
      But, I did exactly that in my OP.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Disturbiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The History Channel did a TV show about this.  It was called "Life After People" and showed the impact humanity's disappearance might have on the planet.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you Disturbia. I'll have to check into that.

            replyreport
         2. 88

            mistyhorizon2003posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Those 'Life After People' series were brilliant, I was totally hooked from the first episode.
            
            Personally I feel the world would be better off without people, and that nature would find a balance once man and the artificial advantages he had over wildlife were removed, e.g. technology, guns, cars, poisons etc. It is obvious that the way things are now and the fact the world population has just officially hit 7 billion, that there is inevitably an increasing need for space and resources. It always seems to be the environment and the wildlife that pays the price in these situations, until eventually they have no natural habitat of their own, or are persecuted for wandering into territory that was formerly theirs and destroying crops, (think wild elephants.) The series 'Life After People' made it very clear how nature would quickly move in again and stability would be restored if people simply vanished one day. Actually in certain places on the globe this has already taken place, e.g. the area near to Chernobyl where people can't live, but wild animals have moved back in and are thriving.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you Misty for your input.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  mistyhorizon2003posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You are welcome Cags

                  replyreport
4. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   The natural ecosystem would definitely be improved without humans. There is no overpopulation of animals, since overpopulation leads immediately to resource depletion and starvation as natural regulator. Animals have no  means of sustaining excess
   resources.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.
      I'm not sure I understand. Please explain?
      Which would mean that the resources would run out eventually, right?

      replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Over population depletes resources. An acre of land may support ten deer but not one-hundred.
   Deer live on vegetation. As long as conditions are such that every type of vegetation continually duplicates itself, there is no end to resources.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It would still make sense that the animals would grow in numbers and would still reduce resources eventually, which is my point.

      replyreport
6. 60

   Disturbiaposted 12 years ago

   The world would be a better place without stupid people.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The animals would strip the resources? I didn't know that: They could build huge cement dams which decimate spawning fish species, drill for and spill oil throughout the lands and oceans. Mine for minerals and metals. Build a billion cars. Oh, and the landfill mess they leave with all that plastic and such.  Damned animals...it's a good thing we're here.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         ylime120posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well, whales once lived on land, but caught food in the ocean. They evolved into a body that is fully capable of living under water, but still rely on air. Who says that another species can't pull of some other form of major evolution.

         replyreport
7. 60

   ylime120posted 12 years ago

   I personally think that if humans would never have existed, there would be a great chance that another species, like birds, could evolve to some human standard and have been capable of human-like things.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Parrots talk...give one enough time and they would go on lecture tour? Doubtful. Another one of our cousins would get there first.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         ylime120posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Did you ever realize it took BILLIONS of years for humans to reach the level of evolution we are on. So what happens if we didn't quite make it but some other creature did?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It is an extremely looonnnggg stretch to assume that they would have followed, step by laborious step along the self same path we have tread. WE upset the balance, the food chain, the law of the jungle. MAYBE Neanders would have made it had we never been, but, could they have gone to the moon? Would they have wanted to?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               AND: Were neanders more animal, or more like us?

               replyreport
            2. 60

               ylime120posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I'm not sure. Although your opinion may differ, I think that, if  they survived long enough, they could have been afraid to venture out that far, or maybe they could've made if further than we have. As far as the food chain, they could've been far worse, or better. Maybe a better understanding could've risen from their minds, or they could've found solutions to things us as humans have difficulty with. (for lack of better words, I apologize for the repetition)

               replyreport
   2. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting statement. So you're saying that "human-like" existence would still come to be.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         ylime120posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, that's at least my understanding of it.

         replyreport
8. 0

   markbennisposted 12 years ago

   To be fair Cagsil at some point in the Earths history it was free of humans and as history tells us, it was a brutal existence even then, if we consider the dinosaur eras?
   
   Although I hear what you are saying and it is a deeply thought-out question, I know I have contemplated over that very question many times.  Again to answer it honestly we would have to be a person in the know about all human matters here on Earth.  One who really knows what is happening behind every door and political scene, every aspect of what is really happening to make a true decision.
   
   Unfortunately most of us do not have that privilege or knowledge, for all we know the human race could be led by those who are really paving such a miserable way ahead for us.
   
   A life that is full of horrors and wars for profit or agenda, then again they might be the good guys and we are all, well the bad ones.  Again, I think common sense tells me that the ordinary folk just want to live a normal life, free from wars and famine or disease.
   
   So I personally would be inclined to question those who are in positions of power and why after so many years, they are still playing the same game. Wars, famine, drugs, disease, poverty, drought, etc, etc…
   
   When we have the oceans full of water, enough seeds and technology to create stability and fend off drought, famine, most diseases.  It seems we have plenty of money to buy such powerful weapons but not invent or design a water cleansing station that pumps water in from the seas.
   
   We can pump crude oil thousands of miles across land masses but not water to regions of the world that really need it.
   
   We continue to see children and families dying of curable situations where we know we can fix them, but politics and the military machines of the world.  Are always the foot that holds the door to freedom and success of these diabolical situations, and then the first ones to kick the bloody door down when they need war.
   
   I don’t blame the ordinary folks who are just trying to survive and loosing it now and again, for most life is too hard and with no signs of hope on the horizon. 
   
   No!  I blame those that know exactly what’s going on around the world and obviously have no intention on changing there game, as the worlds problems are just what they are fashioning!
   
   And before anyone thinks so, no I didn’t just get dumped by my girlfriend, or loose my job nor did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed.  I am sick of the bull crap happening on this planet, and how the governments are stealing our freedoms by the day.
   
   The problems on this planet are deliberate and orchestrated in my opinion, and if the dam queen of England hadn’t, claimed every aspect of land on this island.  I would be more than happy to take a trip to the mountains, over looking the sea and build myself a cottage and live the rest of my days out, just enjoying life.  Instead of being fed orchestrated problems after problems, and watching those crocks in suites, stealing every penny I have earned with taxes, taxes, taxes, fines, fines, fines, and more fines, fines and taxes and bloody more taxes!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Dirlingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Define 'better.'

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Dirlingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Oops, meant to reply that to the original topic question.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for the input.

      replyreport
9. 66

   ChristyWritesposted 12 years ago

   The world would be uninteresting I believe. While humans do have actions that hurt the earth, we also show love for one another. We modify plants to create new ones and enjoy the beautiful landscapes around earth.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Uninteresting to whom?
      I'll agree.
      Not all modifications are beneficial.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         ChristyWritesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Good point about 'to whom'... as we would not be here... So who could decide what is interesting? The animals? Would they still exist?
         
         Oh dear, is that a headache I have coming on now?!!

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            Yes Christy, it's definitely hard to fathom because most people just cannot grasp non-existence.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               ChristyWritesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You are quite right Cagsil. You do post interesting forum topics!

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you Christy.

                  replyreport
10. 78

    wildernessposted 12 years ago

    Should the human animal disappear it would have a large effect on the populations of other animals.
    
    Man has created ecosystems that some animals take advantage of quite well.  Rats and mice, for instance, do very well in cities and farms.  Dogs and housecats the same.  Both would survive, but in greatly diminished numbers.
    
    With man gone other animals would take the niche(s) currently occupied by man, filling them to the point of overpopulation; that is, as much as possible.  They will deplete the "natural resources" as far as possible for them until overpopulation problems reduces their numbers.  In other words, no different than what man does.
    
    Man has not materially harmed the earth at all; with the minor exception of a few pounds of material shot into space everything is still all here.  Man has changed ecosystems and animal populations, just as every animal in history has done.
    
    The earth and its inhabitants would be different, yes, but better?  Define better.

    replyreport
    1. 72

       Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Define better however you choose.

       replyreport
11. 0

    Motown2Chitownposted 12 years ago

    You know, I think when considering this question, we should probably clarify what we mean by without human existence.  Do we wonder if the world would be a better place if humanity had never existed - therefore the planet would have never been touched by it, or do wonder if it will be better after we cease to exist?
    
    For example, the History channel show focused specifically on life [b]after[b] people, so it showed primarily the degradation of human creation after there were no more humans to maintain them.  Of course, it then followed that many natural items changed because humanity was no longer manipulating the planet.

    replyreport
    1. 72

       Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well, my OP said both(either never existed or became extinct).

       replyreport
12. 67

    innersmiffposted 12 years ago

    To pass any judgment on the worth of any species is a little arrogant in my opinion. It is not for us to decide which species should live and which should die out, even ourselves. If we truly are a parasite upon the Earth, we can not sustain ourselves for long and will die out anyway. If not, then what is the problem? We are not over-populated just yet (studies show that the global population is set to decrease in the next century), and we have not destroyed the Earth just yet (there is little evidence to suggest carbon dioxide, for instance, is causing the cataclysmic environmental disasters suggested by 'climate scientists'), so we are very premature in judging humanity. Anybody trying to persuade you that humanity is worthless is deceiving you. We absolutely [i[can[/i] build a world where we live in harmony with nature rather than rape it, and maybe we'll one day decide to stop killing each other, stealing from each other and crushing freedom. We can do this very simply by sticking to our moral principles to the farthest extent.
    
    No worldwide vaccinations and no desterilisations required.

    replyreport