[The Proof]

I'm not worried, the Earth is actively trying to get rid of us, you think these floods and fires are accidental? no way

[wiarumas]

Wiarumas, I get your point, "Build it and they will come". Just because the other planets are out there, does this mean we need to go inhabit them? Human engineers don't get too many things prefect on the first try, but unlike Animals, when we go wrong, we don't die off, we just keep messed up that place until we need to move to another place.

If Humans weren't messing this planet up, the Animals wouldn't need to get off it. Earth without humans would be balanced and different. Besides not having buildings or roads. Without Humans traveling, there would not be a lot of the problems that were introduced from us bring our animals to different lands.

I understand moving from one planet to another is not much different then a bird moving from continent, but that bird doesn't move in and make major changes to it's new home. Humans have this messed up thing about trying to always make things like they are back home. Go to some cool little town off the beaten path and sit and watch it change once outsiders discover it's "charm". For awhile we call it heaven, then slowly we start to bring in the things that we miss from back home. Soon that place has lost it's original charm and it looks just like the place everyone came from.

So who's to say that we Humans would get it right by moving to the Moon or Mars? What if Humans planted those trees on the Moon, and then maybe the change caused the Moon to warm up, and then change into something that would effect life on Earth. Was that a good thing?

This is why I agree with that scene from The Matrix about Humans being a virus or a plague. We think we are doing good, but over all we are damaging just about everything we touch. The only people left on this planet that seem to still be in touch with the earth are the few tribes that live off the land in the bush. Only taking what the land gives them and if the land does not give them enough that year, some may die. Only in that way are Humans equal to the animals in living within the earths balance.

Respectfully,

SirDude

I completely agree.

However, my stance is, if humans brought life (plants, animals, etc) to the moon and Mars, and then went extinct, would Mars, the moon, and Earth be better off than it is today? We essentially doubled the chances of life continuing rather than dying off forever if something irreparably happened to Earth. If we sparked life on these planets, and they grew on their own, into habitats completely wild and different than Earth, would that be a magnificent thing, or a disastrous thing?

All lifeforms on earth seem to fit into nature's blueprint. You speak as if humans are the enemy of nature - which we might be - but we are still spawns of nature. Perhaps we have a purpose. And maybe that purpose is a Panspermia type one.

I always wondered about the Martian rovers. What if they contained some bacteria or spores or something. I'm sure they didn't, but I like to pretend what if. Hypothetically in millions of years after mankind has been long forgotten, that one organism, that one piece of contamination could have sparked a new era of life on mars.

Would that be worth the damage that we caused over the course of our existence?

[Kevinaswell]

I suppose it would depend how you define 'better off'.

I feel like the original question is implying slightly that 'better off' means 'without human influence'. But I don't think I agree :O

In terms of sentient accomplishment, Earth would be thrown back into a boring ass planet with a few little critters on it without humans. Sure the environment would be more natural, but I see no reason to consider the influences we've had on nature (MANY of which have been extremely positive, but good news doesn't get good ratings on the news with this retarded 'green' movement) as bad.

I believe Earth would be 'better off' once humanity got to the point that we have destroyed much more than we have created, and we have hated much more than we have loved.

Which isn't the reality of humanity in EITHER case, but quite the opposite. And also the reasons I still have my utmost faith in the success of our species' future <3.

[SirDude]

I completely agree.

However, my stance is, if humans brought life (plants, animals, etc) to the moon and Mars, and then went extinct, would Mars, the moon, and Earth be better off than it is today? We essentially doubled the chances of life continuing rather than dying off forever if something irreparably happened to Earth. If we sparked life on these planets, and they grew on their own, into habitats completely wild and different than Earth, would that be a magnificent thing, or a disastrous thing?

All lifeforms on earth seem to fit into nature's blueprint. You speak as if humans are the enemy of nature - which we might be - but we are still spawns of nature. Perhaps we have a purpose. And maybe that purpose is a Panspermia type one.

I'm not trying to sound 100% negative with anything I write. I just feel we do more damage then good everywhere we go.

I understand your point about doubling or tripling chances of survival by putting some of our "eggs in other baskets", but because the seeds that would be planted on these other plants would not be exactly the same as the earth, what did we save?

As you pointed out, anything left on another planet would grow to be it's own. So now I feel we are playing god or something by trying to save the very things we seem to have no problem killing off here on earth.

Another thought that goes through my head is, why are we so driven to have a back up or reserve some place else? Are Humans all that important to everything else is this universe? Even if every Human and all the large Animals on earth are wiped out, there will still be life and even if not, the universe will still function.

I always wondered about the Martian rovers. What if they contained some bacteria or spores or something. I'm sure they didn't, but I like to pretend what if. Hypothetically in millions of years after mankind has been long forgotten, that one organism, that one piece of contamination could have sparked a new era of life on mars.

Would that be worth the damage that we caused over the course of our existence?

I'm sure they did have something on them. NASA and all the other countries putting things into space have to have a piece of something, some where. Take the Golfball that was hit into space, I'm sure it wasn't clean.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure. I think if some kind of human life is still around and it turned out to be a good thing, then Science would say they meant to do that. If it turned out to be a bad thing, we'll find a way to blow it up.

As a hiker and general lover of nature, I am pretty hard pressed to think of anything that Humans have improved by being on this planet. The Midwest doesn't look anything like it did a couple hundred years ago. There's not too many night skies that have the same views as when Lewis and Clark slept under them.

I really do wish we could see a set of those blueprint so we might understand why we're here.

[Nearsification]

I heard a theory before in which a process of which the earth purposely tries to eliminate species that are harmful to it.


If anyone remembers the name of that let me now.

[Conscience]

Did you hear about the Discovery Center Hostage thing that happened at the Nation's Capital? The person who was threatening to bomb the place and take hostages was killed when he ot shot by police, but check out what he wrote.
In a way, i agree what he's saying. Humans are wonderful, sensitive and important. I'm not neccesarily saying that humans are bad, but if there are limited resources, but unlimited wants... What then? We can't let humans just overrun the world amock in pollution and not giving back to the environment.

My Demands
Go there, Yarrrr.

[Apollo Celestio]

Unable to answer objectively. It's like asking if the universe would be any better off if earth never existed. In the long run it never even mattered.

[jAIson]

Yes. That's why I'm going to dismantle the earth and make me a nice Matrioshka brain for my mind. Sorry.

[SlowPoke68]

This basically sums up where I stand on climate change, green initiatives, etc;

Forget going green -- Earth doesn't care Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

We will eventually destroy ourselves just as a result of our success as a species. Our strength has become our weakness, and will become only moreso as our resources start to dwindle. The problem is currently 7 then 8 then 9 then maybe 10 billion mouths to feed, most of them inhabiting parts of the planet that would be uninhabitable were it not for our ingenuity and our access to cheap energy.

But the question that started this thread is phrased like the "world" would exist in some recognizable way if humans weren't around to formulate the concept of "world". And I say it wouldn't. I believe we are here for a reason. We are here to constitute the world and bring our consciousness to it.

I would say that the human era will have been a necessary phase in the life of the planet, no matter how it turns out.

I think there is some clear thought in what I just wrote. . . but maybe not . . .

Time for a beer.

[hood]

This basically sums up where I stand on climate change, green initiatives, etc;

Forget going green -- Earth doesn't care Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

We will eventually destroy ourselves just as a result of our success as a species. Our strength has become our weakness, and will become only moreso as our resources start to dwindle. The problem is currently 7 then 8 then 9 then maybe 10 billion mouths to feed, most of them inhabiting parts of the planet that would be uninhabitable were it not for our ingenuity and our access to cheap energy.

But the question that started this thread is phrased like the "world" would exist in some recognizable way if humans weren't around to formulate the concept of "world". And I say it wouldn't. I believe we are here for a reason. We are here to constitute the world and bring our consciousness to it.

I would say that the human era will have been a necessary phase in the life of the planet, no matter how it turns out.

I think there is some clear thought in what I just wrote. . . but maybe not . . .

Time for a beer.

I agree, anything that starts always has an end. Otherwise it never started, because we came up with the idea of "starting" and "ending"... maybe that doesn't even matter at all. Maybe thinking and science are more useless than the highly developed nose of a dog... who knows...

I put yes... but only because from my point of view it seems like we are some sort of perversion to this planet. The way it's looking 100,000 years from now the Earth will be completely covered in metal and man made structure... But then what is the Earth? How do we really know plants and water aren't a result from some sort of mass perversion? I mean the metal and man made structures ARE still Earth, technically.