It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would earth and other species be better off without humans?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:02 AM
Try to step aside from your own survival instinct for the next few moments.

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report, a 4 year report drawn up by 1,300 researchers from 95 nations, humans have changed and destroyed ecosystems more rapidly in the past 50 years than any other period. Link to news article on the study.

Furthermore, the 2004 World Conservation Unit's Red List found that current extinction rates are at least 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural rates found in the fossil record, the report and that humans were the main cause of this. News article about the report here

Is there a strong argument that our planet and species on it besides humans, in terms of ecological health and longevity, would be better of without us?
Is the human relationship with our mother earth now parasitic - meaning a relationship which helps one and harms the other? Perhaps some consider our lives more valuable than say that of a tiger or insect?

I am interested to hear peoples opinions. This topic reminds me of a quote from the matrix:

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:45 AM
would the planet be better off without us?

i couldn't imagine mother earth ever really wanted plastic, but who knows?

times have been a lot tougher than anything we've ever seen while the human race has been here. climates come and go, disease takes its course and eventually goes away, things change, animals migrate to better habitats, and evolution happens.

i think we are just one of the impacts this planet has had to deal with including her own sky darkening volcanic burps that have covered the face of earth for ions.

we're just part of her naturally occurring elements at the end of the day.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:39 PM
yes, we are part of the natural mix of things, not unlike like cancer. the way we have multiplied and so overtaken parts of the globe as to have obliterated most other forms of nature in those places is really a lot like cancer, in fact.
then again, we have these big brains, and eyes and ears to know what is going on and could do something to reduce our impact if we wanted to, and maybe even be more helpful
the question is will we?
will we in time?
can we re-establish some sort of equilibrium within nature? see nature more as a fantastic dance partner, and not a foe to be conquered.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:41 PM
It's not so much a "human are parasites" issue. It's simply that there are too darn many of them careless greedy destructive wicked parasites infesting the planet.

The solution to all of this is to merely wipeout 89% of them, and that's very easily accomplished (in fact the solution has already been released, and now all we have to do is wait).

So, don't worry, by the end of 2011, there will be those that might think the Earth could use a few more humans.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by wayno

And i guess that is the really interesting consideration - will we decide finding that equilibrium with our planet is important enough before it is too late? There are a lot of scientists saying we have done irreversible damage already, so perhaps it is already a lost cause.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by Divinorumus

Ok you have my interest - can you tell me more about this population reduction plan?

I wonder if we could ever, collectively as a species on a large scale, ignore our evolutionary inclination to preocreate and actively engage in population reduction solely by not having children. Wishful thinking me thinks........

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:37 PM
Who really knows how many times we've already come to near extinction. If this planet had not had such a dominate species, it probably would have had someone else come here and take over. Maybe we were brought here?

I have wondered if this world hadn't been inhabited by a species such as ours, how nature would be consuming and recycling things anyway.

We already have underground peatmoss fires, what about coal fires and oil fires?

These may have been far less by comparison to our currrent air pollution though. It would be logical to assume the world would have been more natural. Certain parts of the planet have already shown to maintain a certain balance of survivable species. No doubt many that have become extinct would have still been alive or even different if not for our presence. Our greatest interference seems to have only happened within the last few hundred years. I think the planet is self correcting though.

It's my guess that the planet will belch out an explosive comet forming snowball at some point also.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:45 PM
i think that there are some that would benifit from the above link. this is a serious matter, and i feel that some may try to start hurting themselves over issues such as this.

seriously though help is a good thing...

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:45 PM
This is really a no-brainer, isn't it? Of course, everthing on this Earth would br far better off without 'man.'

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report, a 4 year report drawn up by 1,300 researchers from 95 nations, humans have changed and destroyed ecosystems more rapidly in the past 50 years than any other period.

And to prove man's stupidity further... a study needed done to figure this out?

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by the titor experience
Ok you have my interest - can you tell me more about this population reduction plan?

Oops, I missed this earlier. Sorry.

Anyhow, we, about 4400 shaman, have put a curse upon humanity for the destruction and decimation they are causing and inflicting to this planet and all her other equally entitled to be here "citizens" (the wildlife humanity is driving into extinction). We, the LGM of Earth, are fully justified in doing so, and morally obligated to do so too. Wait, I promise, come 2012, only 11% of the human population will remain. The collective force of nature is with us on this one. We will prevail, and there's not a damn thing any human can do to stop this now. Wait, you'll see (maybe

It is imperative that the human infestation be stopped, before they wreck EVERYTHING on Earth! You can understand the necessity of this, can't you?

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Divinorumus]

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by the titor experience

It seems like you keep on wondering whether if it's too late to try and reduce our impacts. We will never know until a few years from now but what's the point of wondering? And when we DO find out, it will definitely be too late to try to reverse all the damage that we've created. The most important thing is to recognize the impacts that we've already made and start some action.

If we keep on going at the rate that we do, I fear that future generations will experience the Earth reaching it's total carrying capacity.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:20 PM
Questions like this one drive me nuts-- primarily because they start with the wrong premise and make no sense.

There are many examples in nature where an imbalance occurs causing the demise of one species or another. In many ways, IMBALANCE (or shifting balances) *is* the natural order.

The key difference with man is that we are supposed to potentially have the capacity to avoid the perils leading to our own demise.

But unfortunately it looks like we aren't the exception to the rule, but rather prove the rule. All that gray matter is apparently useless...

Just my $0.02.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by loam]

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:31 AM
Mankind is said to be on top of the foodchain, fact is we are no longer part of that chain due to agriculture. Hence our population has unnaturaly (culturaly) grown to be unhealty for the planet and us. Due to our dependance on culture for our health and nutrition. This has made the survival of the fittest principle no longer a reality due to culturaly letting the weak survive to. I therefor think that our evolution has stagnated, and might have done so for quite a while now..

I also think that a thriving species on any planet does so by not being dependant on exterior tools but soley on it's own body. By doing so they won't place themselves outside their foodchain and no imbalance in population will occur. Thus there not being a need to go to other planets due to lack of space. Meaning that I don't think that their are much "healthy" space travelling aliens. Only natural reason for doing so would be the ending of their sun.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:11 PM
It's not even a debate. The Earth and just about everything else on it would be better off without humans.


log in