CreateDebate


Debate Info

66
74
Yes No
Debate Score:140
Arguments:125
Total Votes:169
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (51)
 
 No (46)

Debate Creator

Harvard(666) pic



Earth would be better off without humans.

Humans [and only humans] are knowingly destroying dear parent Earth and all life in it. But why? Humans are supposed to be "intelligent," yet, all their actions speaks otherwise. Humans thinking of themselves as "intelligent" is highly dubitable as they are wiping out their own species--talk about    "intelligence." Earths essentialities--or it's sustenances--are being diminished [by humans of course] but in order for humans to live they need the Earths essentials, but because they are so intelligent, they are depleting said essentials with no regard of their actions. Basically:

1) Humans are the primary cause/facilitation for destruction of Earth.

2) Before our ancestors evolved into humans, Earth was entirely more desireable (to nature), and a better/safer place to live (For all life, maybe except our ancestors.)

3) The Earths desirability negatively and significantly changed with the evolved human.

4) Therefore, if humans had not came in the picture, Earth would be a better and much more desirable place for all life in it.

Yes

Side Score: 66
VS.

No

Side Score: 74
4 points

Based on empirical evidence, yes, dear Earth--and everything in it--would be significantly better.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5669) Disputed
2 points

Earth must be jealous of Mars .

Side: No
Harvard(666) Disputed
2 points

I don't think you understand how unintelligible that statement is. Actually, I'm quite afraid as to why you think that statement was/is indubitably ingenious. Albeit I understand the point, but not the intelligent effort put in to compose such an absurdity.

Side: Yes
Jace(5222) Clarified Banned
1 point

Nah, more like knowing pity I should think. Humans have been landing rovers on Mars for years now... it is the beginning of the end for that planet, and Earth knows it.

I bet Earth is really jealous of Pluto though.

Side: Yes
2 points

I support your argument in part, earth would certainly be better of without SOME humans. Do you want to volunteer?

Side: Yes
2 points

so perhaps there are no current lifeforms other than humans capable of perceiving the world and the benefits it would have if we were not present. however there is also the possibility that there is a species with the potential to appreciate the planet just as we have, maybe in the distant future, and as it stands we have possibly ruined the lives of those hypothetical beings, making life possibly quite hard for them. Also if we were to look at human principles you could generally say we consider life, or at least our own, precious. the question is asking us to judge whether the earth would be more or less desirable without us, and what other criteria do we have other than our own? our actions thus far has caused the deterioration of the environment, and if continued will cause an environment that scarcely supports life, so we have removed the possibility of some of life due to harsh conditions and made life difficult for other animals. There is also damage we have done not concerning the atmosphere such as over fishing, destroying the oceanic ecosystem, and our cruelty by our standards is ironically unmatched by any other species than ourselves. judging by our criteria of our general idea of morality, we are an abhorrent species, causing much death and (suffering) to much life. therefore the world would undoubtedly be better off without us.

Side: Yes
1 point

It all depends, like nature lovers could stay but I would have to go with yes because all we do is destroy wild life and kill animals for fun. We pollute the world for crying out loud. So yea the world would be better without humans

Side: Yes

Whether the world would be better off or not without us is irrelevant. We are here to stay for a very long time. We primates have always been known to be highly intelligent. I guess that's why we are as advanced as we are now. We as a species have grown as time passed (for better and for worse).

Side: Yes
Harvard(666) Disputed
2 points

This doesn't mean we cannot debate about it. Following the arguments, it also sheds some light on how humans really are. In doing so can change someone's destructive behavior therefore making a better earth. Basically, it is relevant; only an irrational person would think otherwise (I.e. to say your health doesn't matter is irrational).

Side: No
1 point

Man has done untold and unimaginable damage to the ecosystem and this cannot be reversed. The course that we have set in place has unbalanced millions of years of history. From drilling shale gale reserves to destroying the ozone layer, we have ruptured the very basics of existence, not only for us, but even for other animals.

Side: Yes
Jace(5222) Banned
5 points

Previous and present human behavior has made the planet increasingly uninhabitable for our species, as well as a number of others. At the same time, I think the planet at large is rather indifferent to our existence. Humans are hardly the first widespread natural disaster, and the extinctions we have driven are not a new phenomenon in the history of the planet either.

Side: No
Harvard(666) Disputed
4 points

Wherein the natural phenomenon that earth has experienced in the past, the keyword is 'natural'. The earth's essentials that are the sustenance thereof, are being utterly destroyed by pollutants that were never introduced in ways from post-human destruction and presence. Previously, the earth's atmosphere (upon the era of water and plants) was significantly better which facilitates its own rehabilitation. That same atmosphere is significantly changing by human activity causing pollution. Upon which is ozone layer depletion in which radioactive waves consequently results in overexposure to all life--the most important being plants. Plants can adapt but not at the speed of this depletion. When essential plants all die off as a result of the overexposure, then oxygen levels decrease, and air pollutant levels increase--due to numerous plants having the ability of absorbing air pollutants such as carbon. Things of this nature results in the over-dominance of air substances, in which leads to a atmospherically imbalanced planet--and as you see, planets such as mars appears to not have any life-forms or habitable areas for life forms-- wherein life itself would eventually become non-existent and non-replenishing.

All of this, thanks to homo-sapiens.

Side: Yes
Jace(5222) Disputed Banned
3 points

You are advancing a false dichotomy; humans are a part of nature, and consequentially all that we produce is also of nature. In a somewhat ironically human-centric approach, you also appear to be underestimating nature as a whole. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest that humans would be able to so utterly alter the environment before causing our own extinction that it would become "Mars-like" and incapable of supporting any life whatsoever.

Notably, your argument regarding radioactive overexposure are seriously undermined by research that shows that there are species within both flora and fauna which can adapt and may even benefit from high levels of radiation. Even if a few bacteria alone survive, which research demonstrates they can, that is more than adequate to continue a pattern of life and evolution on the planet since life on this planet began with single celled organisms. (1, 2, 3)

Even if all life ended on Earth forever... I would suggest that the planet would remain entirely indifferent since it is not capable of caring one way or another.

Side: No
Noxter(92) Clarified
1 point

Species would die out soon or later anyway, not really an issue. However we are capable of creating poisons and chemicals that do harm the ecosystem but cannot happen randomly in nature.

Side: Yes
2 points

What mortals can truly enjoy the earth besides humans? There is little point for it without people to appreciate it.

Side: No

I say no, because 'better' and 'worse' are assessments of relative value- in the absence of humans, there are no known creatures on the planet capable of assessing value on that level.

Compare: If a tree falls in a forest with nobody around to hear it, does it still make a sound? No; the fall produces mechanical vibrations. Sound is what we call the subjective experience produced by our brains interpretation of nerve impulses from the ear, which are triggered by mechanical vibrations within certain frequency ranges, above a basic amplitude threshold.

Just as the existence of 'sound' requires an ear and brain to receive and interpret vibrations as sound, the existence of 'good,' 'bad,' 'better,' and 'worse' requires a sensory organ of some kind, as well as a brain, to observe the various traits to be valued and assign them a value.

Side: No
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

in the absence of humans, there are no known creatures on the planet capable of assessing value on that level.

They might not have be able to assess intricate details but they would have a 'natural' relief- wildlife would have plenty of forestry to house in; the storms they encounter would be less violent; ecosystems would remain balanced; etc.. I know it doesn't matter because they don't perceive these benefits as humans do but I'm not talking about 'perception' I'm speaking of the direct effects that wildlife feels even though they might not know why said effects are happening.

Side: Yes
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Some would have a natural relief. Many species, however, have adapted to survive with some dependency on mankind, and would see quite the opposite. There are also many cases of species threatened by other species introduced to the biome by man, and without the efforts of man to contain and control the invasive species, risk extinction themselves.

Some individuals and species might be aware of their lives changing for the better, some might be aware of their lives changing for the worse. None would be positioned to observe sufficient information to make any kind of value assessment on the planetary scale. The debate is entitled "Earth would be better off without humans," not "Most extant species would be better off without humans." Even if we ignored the inability of any entity to make such a value assessment, it's far from universally true even in a worst case scenario.

Side: Yes
1 point

That statement makes no sense....Humans are apart of the earth, which means its akin to stating "The earth would be better off without itself."

Side: No
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Disputed
2 points

Not really. A more equivalent statement would be like Earth would be better off without a cancerous lump.

Side: Yes
ProLogos(2793) Disputed
1 point

You think of humans as cancerous?

Well, humans don't just harm the planet they help and protect it as well.

Sometimes the planet harms itself but sometimes it still helps itself.

So your example isn't even close. Mine is equivalent.

Yes.

Side: No

"Better" is a human judgment and would therefore be meaningless if humans didn't exist.

Side: No
Harvard(666) Disputed
1 point

Better is just an English homo-sapient sound used to depict an objective situation.

If humans were not here all life would survive and live 'better'. Which means something to them. And plants are life and are good for us, and they are slowing starting to fail to do their natural do which is worse for us.

Basically, what you just spewed was absurd.

Side: Yes
1 point

A) Most animals that have become extinct did so before homo-sapiens existed - including several huge mass extinctions.

B) Better as an "objective situation": Was a "snowball earth" better? Is an earth objectively better which has dinosaurs or does not have dinosaurs?

and they are slowing starting to fail to do their natural do which is worse for us.

(is that English?) Isn't "worse for us" irrelevant if there is no us?

Side: No
Harvard(666) Disputed
0 points

Also 'better' can be objective, you smoking is worse for your lungs. Humans not having cancerous cells would better for the species. Having a high IQ for learning is better than having a Low IQ. Having two lungs is better than having one, in the event you lose one, you chances of surviving become worse.

Side: Yes
1 point

Can you really argue what is better for the human species and that it would be better if the human species did not exist in the same debate without the least bit of cognitive dissonance?

Better depends on what you are trying to achieve - if there is no intention, there is no better/worse progress towards it.

Side: No
1 point

Life is a natural cycle of planets in the Goldilocks zone, so to say that one life form off of one such planet would benefit the planet, wouldn't be a valid argument at all.

Side: No

No, Earth was created for humans to dwell in a place to bask in the glory of the lord. This is just my view however, so don't take this as fact.

Side: No

If anyone looks at our world, they would know that nature is the most violent bloodthirsty survival of the fittest place there is. Animals start eating their prey before it is even dead. At least humans have the compassion to make a clean quick kill with a bullet. Were it not for humans, there would be many millions of other species extinct today because we have it in our power to wipe them off the face of Earth or save them from extinction.

The only humans with an animal behavior are those who support even late term abortions for any reason. They would tear Babies apart inside the womb before birth. Democrats refused to ban partial birth abortions (with a life of mother exception) and it took George Bush to have the compassion to stop the inhumanity.

Earth would be better off without pro abortion fanatics. The value of human life is cheap today, just as in nature.

Side: No