the light that burns the brightest burns out the fastest, and we have burn so very bright, so is life on this planet better off without humans?

I think you are going to have to try to define what you mean by 'better off' in order for people to address what you are looking for.

I think you are going to have to try to define what you mean by 'better off' in order for people to address what you are looking for.

 

it mean whatever you wanted it to mean, i'm not looking for a specific answer.

No. Without humans, mesquitos would face grave difficulty reproducing.

 

Not to mention head lice.

Edited May 28, 201213 yr by ACG52

the light that burns the brightest burns out the fastest, and we have burn so very bright, so is life on this planet better off without humans?

No, I don't think the world is better off without humans. Humans developed LED lights. They burn brighter at less wattage and don't burn out as fast as incandescent lights.

Well, we function only by killing other life forms. We recklessly abuse our planet. We go to war with each other. We enjoy drinking, fucking, and maintaining our obesity. At the drop of a hat Mrs. Jones next door will turn into a wild animal if enough of her basic needs are taken away.

it mean whatever you wanted it to mean, i'm not looking for a specific answer.

In that case, yes.

We go to war with each other. We enjoy drinking, fucking, and maintaining our obesity.

If the problem of the Earth are the humans - what should be wrong with them ruining themselves ?

Lots of the planets flora and fauna now have interdependency with humanity, so our disappearance would have a negative impact on such that is now dependant. The planet really doesn’t care what we do; it’ll just continue to trundle through space.

 

 

If the problem with humanity is that it kills other life-forms, that is also a problem with other life-forms.

If the problem with humanity is that it wages war within its own species, that is also a problem with other life-forms.

If the problem with humanity is that it can cause vast changes in an ecosystem, that is also a problem with other life-forms.

 

More fundamentally, if we're not around to contemplate the welfare of the planet, who would care?

Edited May 28, 201213 yr by Polednice

it mean whatever you wanted it to mean, i'm not looking for a specific answer.

In that case, yes.

 

Or, if you prefer, no.

 

Well, we function only by killing other life forms. We recklessly abuse our planet. We go to war with each other. We enjoy drinking, fucking, and maintaining our obesity. At the drop of a hat Mrs. Jones next door will turn into a wild animal if enough of her basic needs are taken away.

 

We have also started to pollute space.Thumbnail shows space debris. (Sorry about the following string of data which I don't seem to be able to delete)

 

Edited May 28, 201213 yr by Joatmon

I personally don't care if the world is better off without humans. When humans go extinct, life will continue to go on. I'm more concerned about how we're going to keep humans from going extinct.

We have also started to pollute space.

We're also developing global policy governance for space debris.

 

Anything we can mess up, we can fix. Name another animal that can do that.

Well, we function only by killing other life forms.

 

Gotta hate those damn evil heterotrophic organisms...

In that case, yes.

 

 

obviously that's wrong

obviously that's wrong

I think you and zapatos have similar probabilities of being equally obviously wrong.

I think you and zapatos have similar probabilities of being equally obviously wrong.

 

 

who've you been talking to?

Gotta hate those damn evil heterotrophic organisms...

 

 

 

I'm just stating the facts. I didn't share my opinion. Why are you assuming I find all of this "evil"? Do you, for some reason, find it evil? Strange. No one ever mentioned that. Assumptions aren't good.

 

Also, why didn't you continue? And other organisms also kill each other, enjoy fucking, getting drunk, etc.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Appolinaria

obviously that's wrong

I hadn't thought of it that way. Ok, I want to change my answer...

 

I think you and zapatos have similar probabilities of being equally obviously wrong.

 

I would have said that between the two of us we definitely have the right answer!

 

Yes, the world -- if not the entirety of all the universes -- would be better off without humans. Humans are the stinkiest creatures to pollute reality. Human kakaa stinks worse than non-human kakaa. In addition, humans are the only creatures capable of sadism. When a non-human animal attacks something/someone, it does so out of fear or the need to eat. Only humans attacks other living things [animals and other humans] just for sick pleasure. Humans are the only animals who are monstrous enough to harm others just for the sake of causing harm. Humans are the only organisms capable of being evil.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Green Xenon

Only humans attacks other living things [animals and other humans] just for sick pleasure. Humans are the only animals who are monstrous enough to harm others just for the sake of causing harm. Humans are the organisms capable of being evil.

 

That could also be a survival mechanism. It might display being higher up on the ladder and therefore attract more mates.

Yes, the world -- if not the entirety of all the universes -- would be better off without humans. Humans are the stinkiest creatures to pollute reality. Human kakaa stinks worse than non-human kakaa. In addition, humans are the only creatures capable of sadism. When a non-human animal attacks something/someone, it does so out of fear or the need to eat. Only humans attacks other living things [animals and other humans] just for sick pleasure. Humans are the only animals who are monstrous enough to harm others just for the sake of causing harm. Humans are the organisms capable of being evil.

 

 

you have obviously never owned a cat....

you have obviously never owned a cat....

 

do you want to talk about it with someone?

Here is a potentially positive consequence of the existence of the human race:

There was an event known as the Cretaceous extinction that occurred approx 65 million years ago. It supposedly wiped out 85% of all species on the planet. One theory was that it was caused by the impact of a large meteorite. If another such large meteorite were headed towards earth, I'm certain that scientists and engineers would divert it from striking, thereby preventing a re-occurance of a similar mass extinction of life. So the human race may yet be of positive value, in terms of its relationship to the rest of the animal species on the planet, by preventing their extinction from a natural catastrophic event similar to the one that caused the Cretacious extinction.

Yes, the world -- if not the entirety of all the universes -- would be better off without humans. Humans are the stinkiest creatures to pollute reality. Human kakaa stinks worse than non-human kakaa. In addition, humans are the only creatures capable of sadism. When a non-human animal attacks something/someone, it does so out of fear or the need to eat. Only humans attacks other living things [animals and other humans] just for sick pleasure. Humans are the only animals who are monstrous enough to harm others just for the sake of causing harm. Humans are the organisms capable of being evil.

+1 for Moontanman's sadistic cats

 

 

Humans are the only ones protecting earth from the real evil... asteroids and comets that would exterminate most species. It's like the other animals don't even care. They refuse to shoulder their share of the responsibility.

 

edit: I was a few seconds too late with that idea

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Iggy