TheBitterEnd
Well-known member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
Population decline
- Thread starter royfellows
- Start date
royfellows
Well-known member
Looking at the BBC website its gone off the main news page with headlines being devoted to the latest machinations of White House, the virus, and the loss of a Banksy piece, all being considered more newsworthy.
Obviously, this issue fails the main test of there being neither money in it or any political mileage. I wonder how an asteroid heading for this earth would fare in the main stream media?
I suppose if it fell on the same day as the climax of a popular soap, my answer is badly.
Maybe we all deserve to die, and this and the virus is natures way.
We all die anyway, that is for sure, so we should attempt to get all we can out of life while we can.
Obviously, this issue fails the main test of there being neither money in it or any political mileage. I wonder how an asteroid heading for this earth would fare in the main stream media?
I suppose if it fell on the same day as the climax of a popular soap, my answer is badly.
Maybe we all deserve to die, and this and the virus is natures way.
We all die anyway, that is for sure, so we should attempt to get all we can out of life while we can.
langcliffe
Well-known member
pwhole said:
At what point? I said "for its first 4.5 billion years". Anyway, the Hadean eon was over after the first 500 million years.
pwhole
Well-known member
Yeah, sorry, I meant 'in what way' - that was a typo done in haste. But also agreed, I know it was slightly facetious in the time estimates, but I was trying to point out that we can never really know whether it was 'better' or not before humans were around, in the same way we can't really tell whether it was better 100 years ago - we are where we are as a species, and it's obvious we've left the rest behind in terms of physical evolution. Though we are the only species to now be able to accelerate the evolution of other species by interacting with them in more advanced ways - like teaching chimps sign-language. Dolphins, whales, elephants, horses and other large animals seem quite happy to hang out with us, given the opportunity, and I can't imagine it's just because they're hungry and we give them food - they can get that themselves, and they obviously enjoy the interaction.
I get a bit confused when we think of the planet as 'better off' without us, as the planet produced us, and even if there isn't a 'reason' for that, we may as well make the best of it. The Earth itself is only a transient location and it's halfway through already. And if the climate and environment continue to destabilise at current rates, it's probably a good idea to start thinking of other places humans can live apart from Earth - just in case
I get a bit confused when we think of the planet as 'better off' without us, as the planet produced us, and even if there isn't a 'reason' for that, we may as well make the best of it. The Earth itself is only a transient location and it's halfway through already. And if the climate and environment continue to destabilise at current rates, it's probably a good idea to start thinking of other places humans can live apart from Earth - just in case
So ? who is wrecking the planet by mass-producing ?stuff?, whether or not it?s ?useful?? Is it the ants, the bees, the oak trees, the ferns, the frogs, the parakeets, the delphiniums, the muskrats, the trout, the crocodiles, the chimpanzees, the cockroaches . . . . Of course not, it?s us, our species. Who is filling the oceans with plastic waste? Is it the ants, the bees, the oak trees, etc.? No again. The rest of nature is bound by checks and balances that our species have, to a fair degree, managed to circumvent, and when people speculate that the planet might be better off without us, I?m sure they mean that the wreckage that we are inflicting on it and the waste with which we are filling it would not be happening.
cavemanmike
Well-known member
We are just leaches on a floating ball of gas relying on another planet for energy which is actually in a process of supernova, and when the sun reaches supernova it will take half of our immediate universe with it
Just saying
Just saying
aricooperdavis
Moderator
cavemanmike said:
Have you considered a career as a a motivational speaker?
PeteHall
Moderator
Fulk said:
Better off for what?????
Within the lifespan of our planet, our impact is zero. Even if we wiped ourselves out with nuclear weapons and took every known species with us, the planet would go on, some DNA would survive with a huge head start compared to day one of the planet and something would grow back, perhaps "better" than what we see today.
Previous species have evolved and become extinct, either as their environment changed or because they were out-competed by another species. Each species has sought to pass on its DNA as best it can, in a hostile and competitive environment, some have been more successful than others.
We have just out-competed every other known species on our planet, not because we are bigger, or stronger, but for the same reason this discussion is even happening; because we have a creative mind, unlike any other species. We are the pinnacle of evolution, something that should be admired and celebrated.
If we all disappeared, would there suddenly be peace and harmony? Would the animals suddenly stop hunting each other for food? Would they suddenly start to care for the weak?
Of course not. Nature is cruel. Animals chase, fight and eat each other. The weak and sick are left to die alone. The strongest survives until something stronger comes along, then they are killed.
Watch the whale calf at he start of Blue Planet; a huge and majestic animal, think of the resource that went into producing it, killed for a mouthful of food. Surely the killer whales should have just eaten few small fish instead of killing something so big when they had no intention of eating it all. Oh wait, they don't give a shit, they just want the easiest dinner they can get, to grow strong and pass on their DNA. Just like every other species.
The reality is that we are far nicer than most creatures on our planet. What other species goes out of its way to support the weak? What other species goes out of its way to help another species? What other species regulates the way they kill their food to minimise suffering? What other species changes its diet to reduce its impact on other species?
Our job is to look after our own species and pass on our DNA. part of that involves looking after where our species live and for that reason alone, we must look after our planet to keep it the way it supports us best.
We need to protect the environment as we know it, because it supports our own life and gives us the ability to pass on our DNA. If the temperature rose by 100 degrees, or the air changed to anthrax, we would die out, but something else better suited would fill the void.
The planet doesn't care, it's an inanimate lump of rock. The other species don't care, they just try to pass on their DNA before they get eaten. It's only us who care and at a species level, we only care because we are selfish, just like every other species.
Given the choice of my species or another, I'll be protecting my species all day long!
I genuinely can't believe that anyone would really want to eradicate their own species (including themselves and everything they love) for the benefit of another species that doesn't give the slightest shit. If you genuinely believe this, feel free to put your money where your mouth is and lead by example. Something else will fill the void.
As for the original topic, a declining population will be bad for the well-being of our species in the short term at least, but no doubt things will re-balance to suit the future environment with or without us or the species that currently exist.
Im struggling with this, cavemanmik: 'We are just leaches on a floating ball of gas relying on another planet for energy which is actually in a process of supernova'
The Earth is a rocky planet, and it doesn't float on anything (except, perhaps, in a metaphorical sense), and the Sun is, of course, star, not another planet. Would you care to explain what you mean?
The Earth is a rocky planet, and it doesn't float on anything (except, perhaps, in a metaphorical sense), and the Sun is, of course, star, not another planet. Would you care to explain what you mean?
cavemanmike
Well-known member
Graigwen said:
It would still wipe us and many other planets out and would create a bigger knock on effect.
But hey the human race will be sipping cocktails on Mars by then
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
Natural selection usually benefits individuals and their offspring at the expense of others in the species, soon allowing the entire species to acquire the desirable characteristics needed in a changing environment.
Humanity will have fitted in well until quite recently.
But then discoveries and inventions (sewers, vaccines, domestic electricity, the internal combustion engine, antibiotics, plastics, etc.) made by a very small number of intelligent and imaginative individuals have enabled the human race as a whole to increase its numbers dramatically without conferring those characteristics on the general population.
The result is now that humanity is (collectively) not bright enough to realise that something must change. If it?s not already too late.
Perhaps good old Mother Nature is already delivering the boot up the arse she keeps in reserve for a species that overreaches itself by failing to exist in harmony with its environment. Global warming, the odd pandemic, antibiotic resistance, plastic pollution in the sea may represent the first twinge of discomfort as the fast-moving toe touches our backside.
It?s very sad that we shall take many other innocent creatures down with us.
Humanity will have fitted in well until quite recently.
But then discoveries and inventions (sewers, vaccines, domestic electricity, the internal combustion engine, antibiotics, plastics, etc.) made by a very small number of intelligent and imaginative individuals have enabled the human race as a whole to increase its numbers dramatically without conferring those characteristics on the general population.
The result is now that humanity is (collectively) not bright enough to realise that something must change. If it?s not already too late.
Perhaps good old Mother Nature is already delivering the boot up the arse she keeps in reserve for a species that overreaches itself by failing to exist in harmony with its environment. Global warming, the odd pandemic, antibiotic resistance, plastic pollution in the sea may represent the first twinge of discomfort as the fast-moving toe touches our backside.
It?s very sad that we shall take many other innocent creatures down with us.
crickleymal
New member
PeteHall said:
PeteHall
Moderator
kay said:
This is a very slippery slope.
If euthanasia were legalised, over time, this would put considerable pressure on the elderly and vulnerable to "do the right thing" and stop "being a burden on society". We should be protecting the elderly and vulnerable, not labelling them as a burden and certainly not pushing them to kill themselves to make space for us!
There is also the obvious risk that beneficiaries would put pressure on elderly relatives, or sign paperwork against the will of the elderly in order to pick up an inheritance before it is depleted by old age care.
This isn't the kind of society I want to live in.
