Is humanity a net negative for the planet?

[sserafim]

.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Dang I should have seen this thread before replying to the other one.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

From our point of view we could say we're net negative for the planet but in the big context of the universe it doesn't matter whether life forms destroy their own environment or whether it's destroyed by other events like meteorites, eruption of a super volcano or a supernova within 50 ly distance for example.

 

[Kit1]

Yes

 

[sserafim]

Yes

Why do you say so?

 

[Kit1]

We have brought wars, abuse, poverty and are hel bent on destroying the environment and bringing destruction to nature and animals - the harm and destruction we have unleashed shows no bounds. I fail to see anything positive in our existence.

 

[dödsängel]

Hard to say
we are part of the planet
People like to talk about nature forgetting that we are a part of it too

 

[sserafim]

Hard to say
we are part of the planet
People like to talk about nature forgetting that we are a part of it too

Humans have transcended nature. I don't consider us part of nature. We aren't essential to the planet; the planet doesn't need us

 

[dödsängel]

Humans have transcended nature. I don't consider us part of nature. We aren't essential to the planet; the planet doesn't need us

Nothing is essential to the planet. Nothing needs anything.

 

[sserafim]

Nothing is essential to the planet. Nothing needs anything.

Yeah, but the planet would be objectively better off without humanity. Humanity is actively causing harm to the planet and the planet's destruction. Just look at climate change. Humanity is also exhausting the planet of its resources to fulfill its selfish motivations and gains. Every few seconds, another species goes extinct. The morally correct thing would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct

We have brought wars, abuse, poverty and are hel bent on destroying the environment and bringing destruction to nature and animals - the harm and destruction we have unleashed shows no bounds. I fail to see anything positive in our existence.

Same

 

[dödsängel]

Yeah, but the planet would be objectively better off without humanity. Humanity is actively causing harm to the planet and the planet's destruction. Just look at climate change. Humanity is also exhausting the planet of its resources to fulfill its selfish motivations and gains. Every few seconds, another species goes extinct. The morally correct thing would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct

The idea of moral correctness is human, it's what we created
Nature has always been about the strong dominating the weak, predators killing prey, etc
We've just become the dominant species and are therefore reaping everything to our benefit. That's what our natural goal is supposed to be

 

[untothedepths]

Humanity's track record isn't good. Not even back in the earlier ages of our existence. This isn't representative of all humanity though, so we could say at the very least there have probably been some fantastic societies who get along fine. However, outside of that humanity seems to be a very violent and destructive organism. It could be we simply have fingers and the intelligence that separates us from the animals, but I would dare say I wish our intelligence would see just how better we could be if we acted more like a 'hippy' honey bee collective than swaths of angry hornets. I will never condone nor understand the value in traveling miles across land and water to kill another human you have never met in the name for your people. With all of the ingenuity and recources it took to harm one another we could have spend that time and man power building up other countries, healing our communities, and striving for greater scientific advancements in the name of problem solving. What a shame.

 

[SoulCage]

Well.. in regards to life on planet earth, there have already been 5 mass extinction events. Though scientists believe that those happened due to volcanic activity and extraterrestrial objects. In our current mass extinction event it is believed that humans are causing it because the ecosystems are no longer balanced. Species die out even faster than they used to.

So yes, we are a net negative for all living things :D

But I guess there will be at least another life cycle before the planet becomes desolate. Maybe that one will be better, because in my opinion (no research to back that up) the current one is already fckd beyond repair

So, maybe we are actually a net positive, because we are causing the end of all suffering on earth? Hmmmmm....

Animals, despite not having the same level of intelligence as us humans, also suffer from pain that helps them to survive. But I guess their drive to survive is so much stronger and it's kinda sad that those beings don't get to "fulfill their reason". It's sad (for me) because we are taking away something that they want and I know how that feels like. Like society taking away my peaceful CTB methods.

That means we are a net negative for everything that wants to live.

(P.s. I couldn't resist writing my conclusion to this topic and it turned out quite scientific.. most of the stuff I already heard about, but wasn't sure if it's fact-checked by actual scientists. In my quick google searches I could verify my claims, but still don't know if I got anything wrong... Feel free to correct me, I really want to avoid spreading false facts.)

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yes, I'd say so. The major positives humans tend to do is for humanity. There will be some who try to take care of the planet but let's face it- they are desperately trying to undo the damage we've already done.

That said- if we hadn't become the dominant species, perhaps another would have that would have done even more damage. It's hard to envisage but, not impossible I suppose.

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

Yes, but luckily for me I don't care about the planet past it's usefulness to humanity. I'd rather we build nice things and destroy the environment so everyone can live a decent life instead of keeping some people locked into poverty to save it.

All that money spent buying expensive organic, sustainably sourced "eco products" is money that isn't going towards people in need right in front of us and the industrial development of the third world at large. People who obsess over blocking environmentally damaging but affordable industrial development in third world nations (like coal plants for cheap electricity and deforestation for construction) can have the best intentions but at times may seem like wealthy elites who, despite living in nations that developed with the same methods, want to keep a human zoo locked in the year 1500 so they can enjoy the nature for themselves.

I understand the concern for climate change's effects on the third world, but I don't think the damage done outweighs the benefits of industrialization either.