CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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.
Based on empirical evidence, yes, dear Earth--and everything in it--would be significantly better.
"Better" is a value term. You speak as though the Earth actually Values things. This is incorrect. It is simply your value judgment that Earth would be better without people. Since you are a person, your value judgment projected onto a planet is more problematic than my mockery of this position.
I'm quite afraid as to why you think that statement was/is indubitably ingenious
I am quite concerned that you seem to believe you can read my mind based on a snarky comment. Mind reading is the only reason you could think that I think that my comment was ingenious.
I understand the point, but not the intelligent effort put in to compose such an absurdity.
It was a simple absurdity that took little effort.
When I speak of earth, I speak off all life on it excluding humans. Since humans are the cause for unnecessary death and atmospheric changes (which is worse for all life including humans) then take out the cause you would have better results. Animals have feelings, they are apart of my descriptor of the earth, humans cause them to feel bad, so humans not being here would alleviate the feelings. (To clarify: this statement is just an example, 'feel bad' is to mean as a result of human activities such as deforestation leaves animals starving, homeless, etc.).
Mind reading is the only reason you could think that I think that my comment was ingenious.
So I guess words like 'implication' are not apart of your vocabulary...
It was a simple absurdity that took little effort.
Obviously. Since the fallibility behind it was extremely high I assume the cause was unintelligible.
When I speak of earth, I speak off all life on it excluding humans
It's unnatural and irrational for a species to exclude itself when making a value judgment.
In trying to determine who on earth would be better off (since earth can't care), how do you choose? If it's based on unnecessary death, would the invention of anti-bacterial chemical be the worst? Doesn't it kill the most?
Why choose animals and exclude humans? We certainly wouldn't live better. There are countless microscopic creatures in the human microbiome, they wouldn't live better.
Other animals destroy their environment as well as humans. When they go too far, their population plummets and they start again. It's cyclical. Have you considered that humans fit this model as well?
It may be a perfectly natural cycle that our population booms, we destroy everything (pushing evolution even harder), and then we destroy ourselves and it all starts over.
Why is it better to keep a species?
Does it matter that we have more diversity now than ever before? Maybe earth is better off with us killing out species to make room for hardier evolutionary diversity.
Were you serious... You disregard the fact that environmental destruction of itself is natural which is why it replenishes. 80%+ of deforestation is not natural. An elephant knocking down a tree to eat is natural; Beavers chomping down trees for homes is not harmful. This, in a sense, natural 'deforestation' is completely fine because the trees are relatively small. Beavers do not relocate themselves because of their loss in trees. This is because of their ecosystem's stabilization. Humans attempt at an emulation of this has proved unsuccessful. An ecosystem imbalance--excluding humans--would be a natural imbalance, which is why it fixes itself. A human impediment causes this self-fixation to be illusory.
As for the evolution part; I'm not just talking about human atmospheric based extinctions. Hunting, poisoning, etc., is also a cause. "Why keep a species" Humans killing off these animals hurts themselves also. So your diversity notion fails. Humans killing off themselves does help with evolutionary factors- this isn't competition (as evolution requires).
When there is little predation, some species become overpopulated and damage their environment. after the tipping point their numbers plummet. This can happen with deer and rabbits. My suggestion is that it is the same with humans but it takes a very long time. My notion of diversity is based on the fact that there are more species now than before, regardless of human action. The point about our harm to ourselves is moot since the debate regards our absence vs non-absence. My suggestion is simply that nature which has created us, is equipped to deal with us. That human action isn't unnatural simply by virtue of the fact that it's human. The only thing required to push evolution is a stressor which must be overcome through mutation to maintain survival. Humans may be that very stressor.
Human overpopulation is the main reason for the earths destruction. 80% of forestry will eventually turn into 100%. All of the wildlife thriving in the forest will die out of course. Wildlife that is essential to ecosystem balancing. A balancing necessitated for survival. Moreover, the "20%" will be replaced with factories and such that produces more carbon (or nuclear waste), which results in even more rapid atmospherical changes. To suggest this will be 'recycled' is completely absurd. There is a fine distinction between human overpopulation and animal overpopulation- the main reason being what humans do as a result vs. what animals do.
If humans destroyed 100% of the earths forests and all forest wildlife thus destroying any human quality of life, then yes I suppose everyone would be better off without humans. But that is an enormous if.
Your argument is devolving into something similar to your "we have paved the planet" hysteria. I'm out.
Seeing that my pessimistic view is likely to happen based of empirical evidence; and your optimistic view offers very little substation in comparison to mine; then I must advise you to change you optimistic view of this "If" and divert it towards your notions of earths bright future. Done.
No problem. However, you'll probably only understand such evidence through knowledge of meteorology, ecology, biology, zoology, astronomy (because of the suns radiation), and botany. I fear you haven't really specialized or sub-specialized in either of these fields--I presume this based of your responses but do correct me if I am wrong (and reading about a few things on a website, TV, science magazines, etc., does not make your claims admissible in a topic requiring an interdisciplinary approach or scope).
No, my understanding is very surface. But that's okay since you provided quotes from all those well respected specialist spelling out the planets impending doom. Oh wait.
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.
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.
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
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Humans are a part of nature, and consequentially all that we produce is also of nature.
Your point? My point is that the production itself is not natural. And the introduction of such products was not intended.
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
This presupposes that the current theory of evolution would be repetitive, even though it clearly states how things turned out this way supposedly by 'chance'. As for contemporary plants and organisms; I clearly implicated 'speed' in regards to factors contributing to the depletion of plant life. I also stated that plant can evolve as the radiation becomes exacerbated (but of course this botanic rapid evolution--in comparison with the rapidly increasing radiation--has not been seen.
Also, on a microbiological scale, there is an organismic food-chain. Within this food chain organisms are dependent upon other organisms (which, following the destruction of all other life, these organisms depend on said other life).
Your point? My point is that the production itself is not natural. And the introduction of such products was not intended.
My point was that yours is entirely semantic. If humans are of nature than our actions are also an act of nature, rendering the production itself natural. And of course the introduction of that production was not "intended"; nothing is.
This presupposes [...] said other life).
You have misrepresented my comments by responding to a single sentence taken out of context. The entirety of my analysis was that there is no evidence (certainly none proffered by yourself) that humans would so fundamentally alter the environment before causing our extinction as to render all other life infeasible. This unfounded claim becomes even more tenuous in light of the diverse range of flora and fauna (including but certainly not limited to bacteria) which not only survive but thrive at higher radiation levels than humans can withstand.
And, of course, ultimately a non-sentient Earth would be entirely indifferent even were your unfounded and unlikely claim to come to fruition.
My point was that yours is entirely semantic. If humans are of nature than our actions are also an act of nature, rendering the production itself natural
I will assume that you know of discoveries that defy the laws of nature (I.e. quantum mechanics). So semantics in this situation does not apply. Humans have evolved to do the opposite of what is 'intended'- for example your genitals are intended for reproduction yet people castrate themselves. So to say that it is natural for one to castrate oneself is absurd. Your heart was developed with the intention of life sustainment.
Also what I mean by 'life' is a systematic food chain (I.e. sunlight/CO2/H2O-plant-bug-bird-spider-snake-etc.) Your claim of the flora and fauna does not include a massive reduction of O2 which in that case they would not survive (except bacterium). Your claims need to remain inside the whole scope rather than subsections.
I will assume that you know of discoveries that defy the laws of nature (I.e. quantum mechanics). So semantics in this situation does not apply. Humans have evolved to do the opposite of what is 'intended'- for example your genitals are intended for reproduction yet people castrate themselves. So to say that it is natural for one to castrate oneself is absurd. Your heart was developed with the intention of life sustainment.
Semantics are entirely relevant. The only reason quantum mechanics fall "outside of nature" is because you have defined nature according to a limited human interpretation of the "laws of nature". Your argument is that humans, our actions and our byproducts, ought to be defined as extra-natural... and somehow you find that linguistic contortion less absurd than avoiding the human-centric fallacy that we are distinct from everything else (how very special we must be).
Regarding the tangential issue of castration, this developed as a social (by)product with potentially non-individualistic, non-reproductive benefits (e.g. survival is necessary for procreation, and this can place the collective above individuals in increasingly complex societies). Even where it purely dysfunctional, to hold castration as unnatural on that basis alone you must conclude that nature never produces any dysfunction and that it is a purely functional mechanism... which is patently absurd.
Also what I mean by 'life' is a systematic food chain (I.e. sunlight/CO2/H2O-plant-bug-bird-spider-snake-etc.) Your claim of the flora and fauna does not include a massive reduction of O2 which in that case they would not survive (except bacterium). Your claims need to remain inside the whole scope rather than subsections.
Thank you for misrepresenting my claims once more. My express point this entire time has been that you have failed to present any substantiation whatsoever for any of your claims (e.g. that humans will live long enough to create such a massive O2 reduction), and that this taken in conjunction with empirical evidence of an adaptivity greater than your initial claims suggested casts considerable doubt upon your still wholly unfounded assertions.
It is increasingly evident that you not only lack the necessary evidence to support your claims, but that they are grounded in an ironically anti-human yet human-centric perspective impervious to reason. Given your repeated inability to proffer evidence and your consistent misrepresentations of my statements, I am disinclined to engage with you further on this subject.
Funny that all you have been doing is misrepresenting my claims from failing to interpret them correctly. You've claimed numerous times that I propagating a human-centric view when I'm clearly suggesting that humans--and only humans--destroy the planet in such ways that no other species can. Further, you also seem to not realize that humans are indeed special because of there ability to do what is not prevalent amongst all other life (intentional self-destruction).
Also, you still have not substantiated the notion of 'how humans staying/being here benefits the earth' seeing as the point of the debate is addressing how we have and are destroying the earth thus us not being here would not have caused said destruction --human destruction (simple logic).
Since your only purpose here is just to promote the proper use of 'red herrings' I will not continue in this dispute. It appears I've succumbed to your sophistical professions; I take full responsibility.
(PS: next time stick to the subject at hand; you appear to delude a sound argument to your favor; sad indeed.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many species, however, have adapted to survive with some dependency on mankind, and would see quite the opposite.
But said adaptation could potentially be discontinued. Unless you're implying evolutionary adaptions: "Said species have evolved to become dependent on man". Though I wholly understand some species' unnatural distribution and displacement could entail nonconformity to their 'newly' found surroundings; but these species being maladaptive would not have been necessary if it weren't for homo-sapiens. Dogs/wolves, for example, would not have been successively mutated to the point of lacking hunting essentials e.g. slender legs, aggressiveness, senses, etc.. Perhaps I should have named the title "Earth would have been better off without humans". That said;"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," would further supplement my notion.
------
I concede to the 2nd part, except, just for the fun of cherry picking: "None would be positioned to observe sufficient information to make any kind of value assessment on the planetary scale" would imply an objective fact that no other species can assess situations on the planetary scale. Of course there is no evidence, but it could be the case that another species can intellectually interpret planetary epidemics as being a 'special[sic] causality' (a cause derived from a species). Also, to clarify, by "Earth" I mean judgmental life therein. And by that I mean wildlife that can recognize unnaturalness (e.g. zoo animals are depressed/stressed because they cannot adjust to these extremely unnatural environments even if they are raised therein. They also have confliction internally with their instinctual urges and their inability to act thereof.)
No, humans help what they've destroyed. The earth does not "hurt itself" the destruction is to us (e.g. Tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) but these events happen in places where it is suitable (i.e. tornadoes aren't prevalent in forest, rather, grasslands. But when we build on these grasslands and a tornado storms through, it is only destruction to us.
Hmmm.... Was this disputation supposed to be intelligible? Natural wild fires are beneficial.
I specifically stated humans help what they destroy.
Overexposure to the solar rays can kill plants- and it does. Do you know why? Because of depletion in the ozone layer; why is the ozone layer depleting? Because of an unnatural amaount of pollutants such as carbon. Where are these massive amount of pollutants coming from? Cars, meat production factories, etc. Where did said example come from? Human species.
You said the earth "harms itself" and substantiated that claim exemplifying 'wildfires'. This would imply that this wildfire is not beneficial since it such a 'harm'.
You are just as unintelligent as that absurd mindless statement.
Wild fires are not beneficial....... Stay in school please
You have a hard time (do to your physiologic deficiencies) comprehending simple implications. That "....." meant 'a pause for stupidity'--think of it as "wow." "Stay in school" was to mean, simply, that in school you learn how wildfires are beneficial.
Jeez man, does everybody need to explain self-explanatory statements? I don't think this site is for you since this requires some comprehension.
PS: this is what you get for copying disputations that some other unintelligibly-minded person made. You waited until "JustIgnoreMe" pointed out what he falsely thought was contradictory, then decided "oh yeaaa, Due to the opposition's incoherent arguments and inability to remain consistent, ProLogos wins this battle." (Also, *opposer's not "oppositions".)
All in all, you just made yourself look like an ass. And whoever liked that statement obviously has a hard time with reading and comprehension just as you.
"Stay in school" was to mean, simply, that in school you learn how wildfires are beneficial.
Really? You learn it in school? Then tell me how they are beneficial.
Even if you manage to, it would only support my point, that nature harms and helps itself.
PS: this is what you get for copying disputations that some other unintelligibly-minded person made. You waited until "JustIgnoreMe" pointed out what he falsely thought was contradictory, then decided "oh yeaaa
More incoherent rambling.
(Also, opposer's not "oppositions".)
"Opposition's" is proper.
All in all, you just made yourself look like an ass. And whoever liked that statement obviously has a hard time with reading and comprehension just as you.
Aww ubutthurt? :)
Yeah I don't think so... since you're just trolling.
How am I butt-hurt? You made yourself look stupid by courageously disputing me while being completely wrong.. Lmfao, FAIL. THEN you tried to be smart about while still being wrong. And you're calling me butt-hurt for pointing out your vacuous dumbass statements? Okay, I guess I'm "butthurt" then.
More incoherent rambling.
Lmfao WHAT?!? Oh, so it's incoherent to point out someone who gives disputations that they would not have gave if it weren't for someone giving them the idea?? Haha, have a nice day 'would-be' adversary.
PS: "Opposition" is plural (meaning more than one person I.e. a group). I'm the only one disputing you so "opposers" is the correct term. Lmao and I'm trolling. Clearly you have much to learn before you try an argue with someone who finished elementary school.
P.S: "Opposer" isn't even a word. Opposition was the correct word and isn't just plural.
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhh. My oh my are you stupid. Opposition represents a group when using the word as a replacement opposite people (e.g.The opposition moved for the admission of exhibit 308; [Singular] the opposer suggested that he should have came in first place).
You really have a hard time at comprehension. That of a child. Clearly I said wild fires are not beneficial with the "....." as to mean 'brief pause for his stupidity'. Then I stated "stay in school" meaning in school they teach you how wild fires are beneficial which he clearly implicated was not.
You attempting to abase me caused yourself to look like a complete idiot. This further supplements my notion of your cognitive abilities being that of the incompetent.
(You probably won't comprehend this but hey; some get it, some don't.)
Wild fires kill animals and their homes. How can they be beneficial if they only cause damage? - this jog your memory? I did not misquote I paraphrased.
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.
(is that English?) Isn't "worse for us" irrelevant if there is no us?
Apparently you are multilingual because you ask of the content of my syntax yet you are responsive?
As for the "is no us," I am going to suggest you asses my previous disputation... because your misperceiving of it causes doubt about my perception of you- of course you may not care, but I do.
They directly address claims you made - so, if my statements are irrelevant it would have to be because your claims were themselves irrelevant.
You: If humans were not here all life would survive and live 'better'.
My A) is an assertion that "all life" did not "survive" when "humans were not here" and is a direct and verifiable refutation of your claim.
You: Better is just an English homo-sapient[sic] sound used to depict an objective situation.
My B) poses a couple of questions meant to be unanswerable in the hopes that you could, on your own, come to the conclusion that your claim is nonsensical.
Apparently you are multilingual
Yes, I am. Though "slowing starting to fail to do their natural do" is not coherent in any language to which I am familiar.
I am going to suggest you asses[sic] my previous disputation
I did, and "slowing starting to fail to do their natural do" still doesn't make sense and "worse for us" is still irrelevant in a debate which presupposes the absence of humans.
because your misperceiving of it causes doubt about my perception of you
If people misperceive your argument, perhaps there is some onus on you to make it better...
of course you may not care
Right - if you make vacuous arguments, I am not going to be very inclined to respect your opinion.
I knew it; this disputation of yours clarifies that within your assessment misperception is great.
It is not me who makes vacuous arguments, it is you unintelligible nonconforming deluded mind that can not ascertain the point I'm trying to make. By consistently implying that I'm addressing life post-human; and by me offering a clarification; this lets me know you are either (A) Incorrigible or (B) Cognitively disabled in regards to 'reading assessing and comprehension'.
By consistently implying that I'm addressing life post-human;
If you are not "addressing life post-human", then you are not addressing the debate at hand.
and by me offering a clarification
No clarification has been given.
You have only asserted, without any substantiation, that
A) more survival and 'better' living would necessarily follow, ignoring the actual history of evolution & extinction without human input,
and B) that "better" is objective - which is false. Are more complex animals "better" than simpler ones? Smarter "better" than dumb? Is it "better" to have many animals fighting for dependent resources, or relatively few animals living in abundance? If nearly every species that went extinct did so without human input, was that earth "better"? If an asteroid hits the earth, but could have been avoided by human intervention, would it still be "better"?
Cognitive disability then. Clearly I'm talking about humans and nature, not fucking asteroids and Dinos. This is because I don't mind natural phenomenon, but *unnatural phenomenological destruction -- unnecessary at that --- is what is what I am addressing. These post-human extinctions were natural (aside from the asteroid- in a 'sense'). But there was still animal life nonetheless. This 'human' cause destruction is completely different. Human destruction will potentially destroy all life (except maybe a few bacterium). Because as soon as the plants die out, so does the oxygen level, then comes other life that can sustain harsh conditions (a few plants, cockroaches, microorganism, etc.), then all that's left, again, is bacterium. This bacterium will not evolve into an elephant like the mammoth (in regards to your 'post human extinctions). Basically, the way extinctions post-human worked itself out was natural, which is why it worked out (I.e. mammoth to elephant) but human reciprocation of that is false. Humans are destroying ALL life not SOME life as the post-human NATURAL destruction caused.
(NOTE: asses this before you give a response, I'm sure I clarified the point I was getting across)
Well, I tried. Some people catch on, unfortunately, some do not.
You won't understand this but...
I am addressing human causes of unnatural and unnecessary destruction to life on earth. I never said humans not being here will cause Zero destruction.
Right NOW, humans not being here would have a significant difference on ecosystems, wildlife, etc. Animals would not be confined to prisons that restrict there instinctual urges. Animals would have 80%+ more forestry to live in. So on an so forth.
Nature destroys itself then replenishes, it's a cycle of nature. Humans impose on this cycle thus resulting in something unnatural. Unnatural, harmful, and torturous to wildlife. Humans do this for irrational reasons (poaching tigers just for a floor mat?). 'Humans' cause 300+ animal extinctions. 1,000+ plant extinctions, and are the cause of rising plant/animal endangerment. A species. Natural events, sure, but a species causing all of this? Basically, if this species were not here, 300+ animals would still thrive, 80%+ forestry would still be, earth would be a degree cooler, water levels would be lower, water would be cleaner-- as would the air, and more. So yes, earth would be a better place (for all life in it) if there were no humans, which is an irrefutable fact.
You are correct - some people know what objective means, and some do not; some can learn it, for others it seems unachievable...
I am addressing human causes of unnatural and unnecessary destruction to life on earth.
Compared to what? Doesn't "better" require a comparator? If the comparison is to nature without humans, then natural destruction that occurs without humans is a relevant and sound disputation that has so far gone unaddressed (if not flatly conceded).
Animals would not be confined to prisons that restrict there instinctual urges. Animals would have 80%+ more forestry to live in. So on an so forth.
You keep making a subjective argument about preserving certain conditions/animals, but calling it objectively better.
Nature destroys itself then replenishes, it's a cycle of nature.
This is not inherently the case - as you acknowledge in your other post, nature will surely destroy the earth and all life on it.
This also ignores the idea that human behavior may be cyclical as well - maybe future humans will be a (subjectively) better preserver for animals than current humans - even bringing back animals that have become extinct - ref
In order to deal with our impact on the atmosphere, we may learn techniques (cloud-seeding for rain, adding aerosols to reduce temperature, etc.) to help us manipulate it in the future in response to natural shifts. If keeping conditions the same is "better", humans may be the best chance of maximally preserving those conditions.
300+ animals would still thrive, 80%+ forestry would still be, earth would be a degree cooler, water levels would be lower, water would be cleaner-- as would the air
In every case, nature has done even worse without our contribution. The earth has been much hotter and much colder, sea levels have been far higher and lower, oxygen has been at much higher and lower concentration, etc. before humans ever existed. At which point was earth objectively "best"?
So yes, earth would be a better place (for all life in it) if there were no humans, which is an irrefutable fact.
Not just refutable, but refuted. You can argue that certain conditions would be subjectively preferable to achieve specific goals - keeping oxygen concentration or sea levels static, preserving the polar bear, etc., but not how any of those goals are objectively good, or even that they would be better preserved by nature over time.
1) If you were to have taken human intelligence out of the equation, all of the 'objective' destructive results that derived from said intelligence would not have existed. 2) As a result of humans destructive tendency, they are causing an unnatural economic imbalance--amongst other things; 3) These economic imbalances are objectively bad for the earth (humans, animals, plant life, etc.); 4) These economic imbalances are caused by air pollution, water pollution, animal depletion/extinction, deforestation; 5) These destructive contributors are essentially caused by humans; 6) Therefore, given that premise "3)" is fact, humans are objectively worse for the planet now and if they had never existed, then this unnatural/unnecessary cumbersome destruction of the planet would not be persistent today. (Note: I said 'unnatural/unnecessary'.)
(SN: all animals play a vital role in ecosystems/food-chains-/etc.; humans are the only species that serves no purpose and in fact makes matters worse for the ecosystems.)
There is a reason you can't define objective good, and have avoided answering all of the related questions (what is the ideal oxygen concentration, etc.) - there is no such thing, different is just different.
You can try to make the argument that humans have enough cognitive capacity to make certain actions (subjectively) immoral - but you erroneously exceed that when you claim it to be objectively better.
I've give examples of objective 'betters'. You having two kidneys is 'better' than one.
I've addressed everything else in my last post. And clearly you did not read further before refuting the 'Dino asteroid' point. I said 'HUMANS' and nature. The asteroid/Dino era had no humans in it.
It's quite amusing how much one needs to simplify. Jeez, this is not even a philosophically based debate. It's simple, no humans=better life on earth. Eventually the sun will implode but there's no need for the torture of wildlife in the meantime.
I've give examples of objective 'betters'. You having two kidneys is 'better' than one.
Your example illustrates my point perfectly. Can something that improves the survivability of humans be objectively better when you also say it would be better if humans did not exist?
I said 'HUMANS' and nature. The asteroid/Dino era had no humans in it.
Doesn't "'HUMANS' and nature" also include nature?? In order to compare human destruction to 'natural' destruction don't you need to look at the other side of the equation? There were several mass extinction events without humans and yet somehow you (still) avoid evaluating that fact on your scale of "better".
Eventually the sun will implode but there's no need for the torture of wildlife in the meantime.
So, when your assertion is that humans will destroy all life - that is bad, but you acknowledge that nature itself will destroy all life and somehow that is less bad?
Is predation, starvation, extinction - all things that occur without humans - not torture?
In at least some instances, don't humans improve conditions for some animals (cats, dogs, cows, etc.)?
Isn't the possibility that humans will take them to other planets the only chance that any of these animals have of escaping the "natural" destruction you mention?
1st part; I used kidneys to exemplify an objective better.
2nd part; I've stated several times that natural extinctions happened, okay, it was natural. Humans caused- and are causing- extinctions unecessarily and they do this knowingly- which is even more reason that an eradication would be best. Humans are also causing their own destruction. Asteroids, Ice ages, etc., are unknowingly caused natural events. They were just going to happen. But humans differ because it does not need to be this way (destroying the earth). Animal harmful acts such as torture; destruction of habitat; unnecessary killing; etc.; is unnecessarily done by humans.
3rd part; The sun natural event is billions of years away. As for right now, killing off and torturing privileged nature is unnecessary. A lion brutally killing an elephant calf--which is almost always torturous seeing as how a male lions bite cannot peirce it's neck to suffocate it--results in a meal for the pride so the lionesses can produce milf for their cubs. Even a male lion taking over a pride killing off all of the former male's cubs is reasonable and--for the male--necessary. A human shooting a male lion just to nail it's body to the wall in no way is necessary. Even in his subjective view it still wouldn't be necessary- Aesthetic satisfaction is not necessary. Indigenous human tribes hunting would a necessity. But a hunter sniping game and shooting duck is not necessary, and most often times is only for pure sport.
Scientist are trying to relocate asiatic lions across India, but the area that has the last of these rare lions refuse to let them do so simply because they want to be known as the area with the last of the asiatic lions.... Wow. This type of behavior is typical amongst humans.
You've also mentioned cows/dogs/cats, if humans never domesticated these animals--like all other wildlife--they would have thrived naturally- this case cannot call for terms such as 'better' because the domestication of these animals was not some sort of 'rescue'. I actually don't know why you use this example. A tiger lives about 12-16 years in the wild; in captivity they live up to 25 years. While in this captivity they suffer from extreme depression; mental disabilities due to inbreeding (esp. when it comes to white tigers); confusion as a result of instinctual urges that cannot be acted upon; and more. Sure the conditions (protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wild) are better but their life is not. Most cows do not graze naturally and freely, esp. in America, because of the rapid meat productivity (the 'non-most' being in the small expensive organic section in food markets).
Your idea of taking animals to another planet presupposes a lot of fantastical thinking.
(P.S. there may be a numerous spelling errors due to me not being on the computer [phone and auto correct].)
1st part; I used kidneys to exemplify an objective better.
Right - you used a logical contradiction. You said that it is both objectively better that humans have a better chance of survival and that the same survival is worse. Starting to run out of ways to explain this to you...
2nd part; I've stated several times that natural extinctions happened, okay, it was natural.
You continue to support my argument. Whatever nature does is ok with you - therefore there is no better or worse condition. Without humans, whatever happens just happens, which was the point I raised in my initial post.
3rd part; The sun natural event is billions of years away.
There are several other natural endangerments to most or all life on earth: asteroids, calderas, solar flares, gamma rays, etc. which could happen any time; more importantly, if all life is wiped out, does it objectively matter when?
But a hunter sniping game and shooting duck is not necessary, and most often times is only for pure sport.
I'm going to go on a limb and say you don't know very many hunters. Most hunters either eat their kill or donate the meat. Regardless, the animal would still be used by nature - either other animals would use or it would provide soil nutrients. How is this objectively better or worse than when nature drops a tree on an animal? Hunters also try for a clean/quick kill where the animal suffers minimally (also in the hunters interest), nature has no such goal. Sufficiently enlightened hunters even take measures to conserve animal populations for the future - measuring animal populations, using tags/lottery, etc. Moreover, this is still irrelevant to what is objectively better since the necessity of humans or any other animal is a subjective opinion.
protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wild
I would add that they have a way better chance of not starving to death, but, more importantly, why keep debating me if you insist on supporting everything I've said...?
Your idea of taking animals to another planet presupposes a lot of fantastical thinking.
The opposite is certain - nature will kill all life on earth. To say that humans helping animals survive that fate is improbable rather than impossible is conceding the point that the chance exists.
PS - your grammar is usually the problem, not spelling (though "lionesses can produce milf" was pretty entertaining - I always thought that was cougars...)
Right - you used a logical contradiction. You said that it is both objectively better that humans have a better chance of survival and that the same survival is worse. Starting to run out of ways to explain this to you...
You just don't get it do you? How about this, a tiger having two kidneys is better than one... Haha you really try and argue the most irrelevant points... Argue my premises then we may continue with a more 'structured' debate.
-----
Also, I'm not supporting your side. You have this illusory belief that nature would be the same without humans KNOWING the destruction that humans cause; knowing that humans are making the earth more uninhabitable- even for themselves!?!?; knowing that they're doing it unnecessarily; all the while, still not substantiating the claim about how they are beneficial to earths ecosystem. But again, lets continue off the premises I presented- I believe it was my last disputation.
Only if it is objectively good that tigers live. If natural causes eventually forced tigers to become extinct, would that be objectively bad?
Also, I'm not supporting your side.
I asked, "In at least some instances, don't humans improve conditions for some animals (cats, dogs, cows, etc.)?"
You offerred "protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wild" which enure to the affirmative.
You have this illusory belief that nature would be the same without humans
Not "the same", just different - not objectively better.
more uninhabitable
Nature made the earth the most uninhabitable it ever was and will inevitably make it the most unihabitable possible.
But again, lets continue off the premises I presented- I believe it was my last disputation.
My argument was, and is, the same as my first post - '"Better" is a human judgment', and until you can objectively define the ideal condition for the earth, you cannot say what would be better or worse at achieving that condition.
Tigers cause a healthy balance in the ecosystem that is necessitated for 'human' survival (since that seems to you the only way something can be objectively better).
I asked, "In at least some instances, don't humans improve conditions for some animals (cats, dogs, cows, etc.)?"
Humans make these conditions worse; I also stated that these animals were fine before being domesticated- actually, seeing all the torturous conditions that only humans put them in, it's actually worse for them.
Not "the same", just different - not objectively better.
Right, less torture; more habitat for the animals; a very long period of naturally good occurrences- I'm speaking of the homo-sapient era so don't respond with 'asteroids' and 'sun implosions'.
But since you choose not to refute my premises, then I guess there's no point in advancing further.
Tigers cause a healthy balance in the ecosystem that is necessitated for 'human' survival (since that seems to you the only way something can be objectively better).
Perfect. Here is exaclty why your argument is cretenous. You are saying that the environment best suited to human survival is objectively better and that it would be objectively better for humans not to exist.
that seems to you the only way something can be objectively better
Just the opposite, objective means regardless perspective - human survival is only subjectivly good or bad (as evinced by your own posts).
less torture; more habitat for the animals
Again, those are subjective to the affected animals. Are more cheetahs objectively good for gazelles?
since you choose not to refute my premises
I have repeatedly refuted your premises, yet you still use them.
"3) These economic imbalances are objectively bad for the earth "
You are saying that the environment best suited to human survival is objectively better and that it would be objectively better for humans not to exist.
Can you read? I said you are saying that. You are also saying that humans living and destroying themselves is objectively better for themselves.
Are more cheetahs objectively good for gazelles?
Exclude more; cheetahs are objectively good for gazelles because it cause a balance in their ecosystem (I.e. less cheetahs=more gazelle; more gazelle=less plantation; less plantation=less gazelle).
Define the ideal condition for the earth...
By earth I include all life on it; so one ideal condition would be oxygen. I am addressing present and future tense (within a proximity).
Me: There is a reason you can't define objective good, and have avoided answering all of the related questions (what is the ideal oxygen concentration, etc.) - there is no such thing, different is just different.
Sorry, but you trying to claim others have a reading comprehension problem is just not going to carry much weight.
cheetahs are objectively good for gazelles
This still depends on preserving cheetahs/gazelles being objectively better than letting them go extinct. If there are no humans, who would care if there were no cheetahs or gazelles? Maybe you should take a while to learn what objectively better means and then come back...
so one ideal condition would be oxygen
What concentration of oxygen is ideal? (Notice how I still have to repeat questions asked several times without answer.....)
The concentration of today, the concentration before the industrial age, the concentration before the emergence of homo-sapiens, the concentration at the end of the Jurassic? Why is the life that exists on the earth at that oxygen concentration objectively better than the life that existed when oxygen levels were much higher or much lower in earth's history?
I'm talking about within a human/animal itself. Prevaricate if you must but you having one lung is objectively worse for your survival (assume normal health); you smoking is objectively worse for your lungs; you not having cuts is objectively better for infection prevention; etc. (Note: I'm just speaking of a person itself, not the 'human-earth' subject. Merely I'm just exemplifying an objective better.)
Right, basically the definition of subjective. Not only are you demonstrating that you did not know what objective means, but you are showing that you are incapable of learning it over time.
having one lung is objectively worse for your survival
Would it be objectively better or worse for Hitler to have one lung?
Would it be objectively better or worse for Hitler to have one lung?
Yes. You are implementing your person feelings making it subjective. You don't know what objective means- (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Fact(1)Hitler was a human; humans have an anatomy; it is a fact that if a human loses a lung, its chances of survival become slim; therefore hitler losing a lung is objectively worse for his survival. Thereby you saying "but he killed all those innocent people :,( ..." makes it a subjective matter.
It is better from Hitler's (subjective) perspective and worse from society's (subjective) perspective. Is Hitler's or society's perspective the one in accord with what is objectively best for the earth?
Ah see this is where you went wrong. It's better for him (FACT) regardless of anyone's perspective. (I also said to disregard the earth, just for right now.)
The 'better' in question is for the earth (see debate title) - so disregarding it makes your post irrelevant. And, again, better for survival says nothing about whether that survival itself is objectively better. Survival is a subjective goal highly preferenced by natural selection.
Wow ... just ... wow. So I guess 'objectivity' is just an illusion? You went so far to say that (within a human) 'survival' is a 'subjective' goal... I'm done here since it appears you go to great lengths to not be wrong- you just said its subjective for hitler because a lot of people wanted him dead, yet, the meaning of objective says to disregard all feelings, opinions, etc.; now you say all life itself is subjective... THEN substantiate that assertion with natural selection???
As for the title; you said better--in every way shape or form--is subjective. So it's relevant to the debate because once an objective better is established, then it can be said what is better for the earth can be objective ... or not but the fact of an objective better can further this issue. If you claim better is entirely subjective then the debate cannot proceed because, basically, you've concluded that you answer is a factual 'no.'
If you seriously cannot find the flaw in arguing both that human survival is objectively good and that the existence of humans is objectively bad, then the deficiency is yours.
you just said its subjective for hitler because a lot of people wanted him dead
It is as subjective to say that it is better for Hitler to live as it is subjective to say it is worse.
substantiate that assertion with natural selection
Natural selection demonstrates whether certain attributes are more/less likely to survive given conditions, it does not dictate that such survival is objectively good .
once an objective better is established
'Better' denotes that something is more apt to produce a certain result - e.g. a second kidney is more apt to increase human survival.
In order to show that something is objectively better, you must show that the result - e.g. human survival - is an objectively good one. Not only have you not done that, but you are specifically arguing the opposite.
No ... they don't. It's instinctual for all animals to 'care' about their environment. Since this is instinct then it is objective. One animal is not going to not care unless it was psychologically problematic. (Dont you dare say 'because of the "unless" you've even further proved my point.')
You've also mentioned cows/dogs/cats, if humans never domesticated these animals--like all other wildlife--they would have thrived naturally- this case cannot call for terms such as 'better' because the domestication of these animals was not some sort of 'rescue'. I actually don't know why you use this example. A tiger lives about 12-16 years in the wild; in captivity they live up to 25 years. While in this captivity they suffer from extreme depression; mental disabilities due to inbreeding (esp. when it comes to white tigers); confusion as a result of instinctual urges that cannot be acted upon; and more. Sure the conditions (protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wild) are better but their life is not. Most cows do not graze naturally and freely, esp. in America, because of the rapid meat productivity (the 'non-most' being in the small expensive organic section in food markets).
Also my apologies, you are right, I did not completely clarify with you. I've given a complete clarification amongst several others, so I assumed you understood my point (I thought you read my other clarifications).
Also, Yes, I am. Though "slowing starting to fail to do their natural do" is not coherent in any language to which I am familiar.
Okay Spanish and French c+ student you obviously did not, or perhaps could not understand what I meant by that.
As for what I said, it was a text error that you're insistent upon addressing, I know proper English, but there is a such thing as--especially with phones--auto correct amongst other things. But of course your profession in English compelled you to address a syntactical error. Since this bothered you so much, pardon me.
There have been a few grammar-Nazis on this site - I have not been one of them. I pointed it out because that part of your statement was completely incoherent. You can complain that I called you on it, or you can try to clarify your intention.
If people misperceive your argument, perhaps there is some onus on you to make it better...
Perhaps you should work comprehensively on your abilities to assess simple premises. Incorrigibly refuting my premises because of a misperception? I say humans cause destruction; you say so did asteroids.... Fallaciousness is consistent with all of your disputations. You act as if I said humans started destroying the earth upon their evolving. You say 'all life will die out anyway' as if I'm clearly not talking about the essential causation of such near-apocalyptic future.
The plants rate of development, has a correlation with the atmosphere. Plants growing slower, as they still are being destroyed by humans, has a positive correlation with oxygen level decrease, ozone late depletion, carbon level increase. As these increases and decreases remain consistent, the plants development remains imposed upon, which causes the Inc and Dec to remain persistent. As they persist, as a result, life conditions start to become--exponentially--unsustainable (except for roaches bacterium and such), things that will not evolve as the life did post-human.
The amount of solar radiation effects the plants development, in turn this effects photosynthesis. Do I really need to explain why a plant photosynthesizing is beneficial to all life? You payed attention in elementary school right?
Do I really need to explain why a plant photosynthesizing is beneficial to all life?
You need to explain why animals that did exist in the past or might exist in the future under different conditions would be objectively worse than you're imagined ideal.
If chemosynthesis became the source for most life on earth, would it be objectively better/worse?
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.
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.
You also claim I avoided your 'better' point yet you avoid any sound disputation or you just point out an irrelevant part and try to deter the dispute. Example:
Me: Tigers live in Asia.
You: No they live in India.
Me: India is apart of south Asia.
You: India is apart of south Asia actually south Asia contains [...]
You see now? Me: humans cause unnecessary earth destruction; You: Ice age caused destruction without humans.
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.
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.