Our serious Human issue...

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]But, r2vq, aren't we [I]supposed[/I] to be cynical? *blink blink*

Never mind.

Anyway, I agree with you, aside from the army thing. We don't need to go military to save our planet. And the Canadian wilderness thing.
I trust you [I]have[/I], at some point been anywhere past Banff, and enjoyed it immensely?
The parts of Canada that are not completely frozen over would be better off used for farming, but in a jam, we could move some housing there, I suppose.

Anywhere past Banff, you've gotta be either deprived, stupid, or there in the name of science. >_>

Anyhoo, the facts stand: we do not need to kill ourselves off in order to stop killing the planet. We have enough resources to support our growing numbers. We need to organize ourselves and act civil towards our fellow humans.

As for us being an evil plague to existance in general...I have an idea: if you're so rooted on that, you can go drink a can of pesticyde. But I'd rather you didn't, as I have nothing against your being here. After all, you could probably put all that environmentalism to good use some day.^_~[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

Fire Pheonix, you aren't by any chance related to Ra's Al Ghul, are you? (Batman fans will get the joke)

I for one am quite partial to the human race, being a human myself. Maybe we aren't the nicest to our environment, but we have just as much of a right to exist as any other animal.

[James]

[color=#707875]As you may know, birth rates are going down all the time. Once the baby boomers die...the population will be cut down very significantly.

So I'd be more worried about [i]under-population[/i] rather than over population. Having said that, I'm sure we could do with less human beings on the Earth. It's probably true that there are already far too many, which then causes an impact on everything else.

As to whether or not humans should exist...I don't know. If I were looking from the outside in, I'd say that humans have no purpose at all. They live, create a largely negative impact on the Earth and then die. From that point of view it seems very inconsequential.

But as a human, who understands that mankind has developed some very magical things (ie: music, literature and even [i]love [/i]), there's a large part of me that cherishes my connection to these things. Without them, I'd definitely cease to exist. So...in that sense, I can't be impartial and I can't provide an objective answer. I hope that made [i]some [/i]sense. I don't know what I'm talking about today.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

I have to agree with deathbug and I was going to say what he did.

We probably will kill earth, but only in the way we perceive it.

100 nukes? Pah, all that will do is kill off what you can see and a large part of what you can not. Though a lot of single celled organisms will live on plus a very select number of 'higher order' organisms which will in turn evolve into a completely different set of life just like with the event of oxygen several hundred million years ago.

So yes the earth will be here long after we are.

[ninetails390]

[QUOTE=r2vq]Ninetails390, this kind of talk disgusts me. It disgusts me that more people dont think like that.

We have over 6 billion people at our disposal. Do we have means to feed them? Ask the obese in North America. Do we have a place to house them? Take a look at Canadian wilderness. Do we really need them? Yes! If everybody took heart, if everybody [i]cared[/i], if nobody took more than needed, if nobody was [i]greedy[/i], we could make a world that [i]everybody[/i] would love, and [i]nobody[/i] would be able to turn away.

-ArV[/QUOTE]
Wow someone agrees with me :D Thank you! I'm so happy, the entire thread isn't full of pessimists any more (no offense to everybody else, ok ;) ) Our world is a beautiful place, the environment, the creatures, and the [I]humans[/I]. We, being more advanced technologicaly and mentally than plants and animals (and rocks, but I don't think they'll ever become intelligent life forms, then again, trees probably won't either...), have been left to care for our world and eachother (imagine the fate of the world in the hands *cough* erm, I mean branches, of oak trees :bellylol: , and then say we aren't important; or should we leave it to the frogs instead? :frog: :therock: ); that is what our creator intended for us to do (I'm staying away from specific religios references, here, for fear of offending people) :o . Every living thing has a purpose, and all living things are equally inportant in the grand scheme of things, and we are one of those species', so we must have been created for a purpose, right? I have a poem that I wrote a while ago that sort of fits the subject so I'll post it:

Purpose

A purpose hidden deep inside,
A place where you can fly,
Where is it?
The talent?s hard to find,
But when you do, you?ll fly,
It?s human nature to lose faith,
But just keep going,
You?ll find your place,
Don?t worry, it?s there,
Deep inside you,
It?s in there somewhere.

See, we all are important; it's just up to you to figure out what you can do to contribute to our species' purpose in the world. ;)
Oh, and look at my signiture, it says ~We are human beings, we aren't perfect, but we try our best.~, that's sort of my motto, as I believe i stated earlier, so it's pretty hard to convince my that humans are horrible monsters, or that we're the greatest beings ever to live ;)

[Sere Tuscumbia]

[font=Times New Roman][size=1][quote name='ninetails390]Our world is a beautiful place, the environment, the creatures, and the [i]humans[/i']. We, being more advanced technologicaly and mentally than plants and animals, have been left to care for our world and eachother; that is what our creator intended for us to do. Every living thing has a purpose, and all living things are equally inportant in the grand scheme of things, and we are one of those species', so we must have been created for a purpose, right?[/quote][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]Actually, I disagree. Humans didn't show up on Earth to be the "mother" for every other species. And if you think about it, Earth has been around much longer than humans have. We humans think that we've been around for a really darn long time, but that's not true. We're actually very recent in the history of the world.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]In other words: the world was doing just fine without us. And when we finally die off, the world will continue to do just fine.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]You say that we're advanced technologically and mentally, and so much more than plants and animals, but humans think that we're so smart because we made fire. Animals are extremely intelligent in their own right, and we just think that they're stupid because they can't speak the same languages we do. Animals have their own civilizations and their own laws and their own morals and their own way of doing things just like us humans do. And point: humans are animals. Sure, we don't run around on four legs or have feathers, but we're still mammals, and mammals are animals. 'Cause hell, we sure ain't plants.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]In the event of technology, humans began something called "controlled evolution". Because esentially, that is the entire reasoning behind why plants and animals are still around today: we've evolved. We've evolved to adapt to the changes that Earth goes through, but now, humans have stopped that process. With the invention of technology, of convinence, humans have stopped the process of evolution.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]And not just for humans, either. We've stopped the evolution process for most other plants and animals too. The only way that we're causing the flora and fauna to adapt is by destroying their homes. And so, because we don't want to change, we make other things change instead.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]My generation -- [b]our[/b] generation -- will probably live to see the death of an ecosystem, maybe two. Humans aren't made to protect -- they're made to destroy. As much as we work to preserve what we have, saving extinct species by no hunting laws or cloning, Arbor Day, recycling, etc, etc, etc, it's never enough, and it's never going to be enough. Let's just face it people: [b]we suck[/b].[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]I think one of the real issues is longevity. Yes, I know that it sounds cruel, but old people just need to die already. We keep trying to extend the span of our lives, trying to find a way to live forever and look youthful, but for every child that dies, someone should die. It sounds mean, but it's true. That's how a population is stablized. Our population will stop growing once we equal the death/birth ratio. So either we teach old people that living until 90 really isn't worth it, or we find some way to keep families from having birth.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]Which, as we all know, will never happen. To certain cultures, having large amounts of children is a way of life. In China, families would try to have large amounts of boys, because women were considered useless (in most cases, if a daughter was born, the house wife would just snap the baby's neck and say that it was a still-born), so families would end up being 12, 13 children (I think that China has child-birth laws now that say that families can't have more than two children . . . but I'm not sure.). It's the same way with Hispanics (no offense to anyone), and people who live in poverty. Children = work, work = money, so the families have lots and lots of children, and our popluation rises when it actually needs to decline until we stablize.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]Hmm, Mr. Bond turned out to be a very depressing teacher, teaching me these things . . . =/[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=1]--Sere[/size][/font]

[ninetails390]

Sorry, Sere, did anything I say offend you (sorry, offending people is sort of a paranoia of mine). Anyways, that's not exactly what I meant. I meant more along the lines of "we must have been created for a purpose. We have to protect our world because, unlike plants and animals, we, thoeretically, have the technology to destroy it, so we need to take care of it; that must be the purpose we were created for. We were created with the gift of compassion (not that there aren't other animals that can feel love, loyalty, and friendship, also), and should use it to take care of our world. We take the ability to love for granted, sometimes abuse the gift, but we don't realize that we wee granted with the rare ability to love and fully understand it, to do something about it. Yes, we are greedy, we abuse are gift of love and forget why we are here, but we are human, we make mistakes. Eventaully, we will die, and whether you believe we will go to a new, perfect world, or drop out of exstance entirely, you will eventually not be here on Earth, so any mistakes we have made will eventually be irrelevant, because the Sun will not last forever, the Earth will not either, but you will (ok, I have to bring religion into this). If you go to Heaven, you will live forever, Earth is just the first step in existance, when you leave it, everything you have done wrong will be forgiven, even forgotten. It will become irrelevent. We are not horrible, we are not perfect, not by a long run, but we aren't horrible, otherwise, why would we be here?" There, I think I worded my opinion better that time ( :o sorry if I offended anyone, i was trying to stay neutral on religious stuff in this thread, but I had to mention Heaven to get my point across. You can probably tell I'm Christian, huh).
Oh, and also, please note that I'm a major nature-lover. I'm osessed with animals and believe that they were created to be just as important as us, they were just created with different gifts than us. I do not believe that we are any more important than them, or that we are a horrible species that is worthless and doesn't matter compared to animals. Lets just say everything balances out (I'm tempted to post more philosophical poetry, but I think I'll resist...)

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I think that the whole "humans were created for a purpose" is pretty much ignorable, because we can only assume we had some "purpose" based on what we as a species have done/will do. In any case there's too much of a religious overtone to the idea for me to address it any further.

But talking about the idea of "we're trying our best," the whole problem is WE'RE NOT TRYING OUR BEST! Not by a long shot. The whole point that many people here are trying to make is that if EVERYONE tried his/her best, then maybe we would have some real progress here. But honestly, things aren't getting better. Not ecologically. They're getting worse. Some people are trying to remedy the situation, and thank goodness. But MORE are only contributing to the situation, and even more are doing nothing at all. So if you have to generalize, then people are really sucking *** at the whole "save our planet" effort.

I don't think Mist and NineTails have a clue, actually, because both believe that people are trying to help, but just can't do as well as some would like. Well, a few people ARE trying to help, but most aren't. I would encourage the both of them to educate themselves on the issue, and then maybe we'd get some real suggestions out of them.

[Mist]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
I don't think Mist and NineTails have a clue, actually, because both believe that people are trying to help, but just can't do as well as some would like. Well, a few people ARE trying to help, but most aren't. I would encourage the both of them to educate themselves on the issue, and then maybe we'd get some real suggestions out of them.[/QUOTE]
[color=orange][size=1] I'll admit I'm not really educated in the issue, but I wasn't aware if the human race was a plague or not was a researchable issue. I was under the impression it was merely a matter of opinion.[/color][/size]

[Sara]

[quote name='ninetails390'] how would you feel if you died because someone went out on a mass-murder spree?[/quote]
[size=1]Dead, I suppose.[/size]

[quote name='james][b]But as a human, who understands that mankind has developed some very magical things (ie: music, literature and even [i]love[/i])[/b'], there's a large part of me that cherishes my connection to these things. Without them, I'd definitely cease to exist. So...in that sense, I can't be impartial and I can't provide an objective answer. I hope that made some sense. I don't know what I'm talking about today.[/quote]

[size=1]As much sense as anything I was trying to think through earlier.

I'm going to be completely honest and say that I have no idea what the current or projected facts/statistics are about population, extinction, oxygen-producing algae, etc. But I do value life, and regardless of what a "virus" we may be, I have to agree with James on the above quote...and Godel on the following.[/size]

[quote name='Godel']As for us being an evil plague to existance in general...I have an idea: if you're so rooted on that, you can go drink a can of pesticyde. But I'd rather you didn't, as I have nothing against your being here. After all, you could probably put all that environmentalism to good use some day.^_~[/quote]

[Guest cloricus]

Just a note that modern humans have only been in existence for around thirty thousand years, our ancestors have only been around for about three hundred and fifty thousand years. Compared to the earth which has been in existence for over four point three billion years. Just some numbers for those that don't know. :)

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Four point six billion years.

Anyway I don't know whether that's supposed to bring anything into perspective or not. It's not "human beings vs. Earth" here. I see it as a question of how much ecological damage the human population as a whole is causing. That has little to nothing to do with how long anything has been around. Ecosystems come and go, and a lot have in the last several hundred million years. One thing is for certain, and that is a lot of ecosystems would have lasted longer if not for human "intervention." And this intervention doesn't evolve those ecosystems, it destroys them. Much fewer things have "adapted to" people than have had to "recover from" them. To many ecosystems we therefore ARE a plague (or were). That goes without question. Does that mean we're one for Earth as a whole? Well, the Earth itself isn't really a "living thing" that we can "harm." It's a freaking planet. I don't think it's a proper wording.

[Muad'Dib]

Ack... "too" many "quotes".

OK, into tree-hugger mode... well, if you look at Earth from a certain point of view, it really is kind of a living thing, though in reality it isn't. You could say everything on it is just part of one big organizm, and every species is another organ. But that's not the point... the point is, most of the things we've "saved" are things we endangered in the first place. Speaking of witch, it's nearly ironic how we actualy use other animals as a tool for extincion.

At least, we used to, and maybe we still do. I'm trying to say, a lot of the endangered or extinct species we've caused, were from taking animals from one environment, and putting them in another. For instance, frogs. There are several incidents in witch people brought frogs (wether on purpose or on accident) into an eco-system that couldn't deal with them, therefore resulting in sometimes extreme damage to the environment.

[ninetails390]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
I don't think Mist and NineTails have a clue, actually, because both believe that people are trying to help, but just can't do as well as some would like. Well, a few people ARE trying to help, but most aren't. I would encourage the both of them to educate themselves on the issue, and then maybe we'd get some real suggestions out of them.[/QUOTE]

I think I'm taking more of a religious and philsophical standpoint than a scientific one. I'm good with science, but I'm bad at making opinions using it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the few of us who are trying to help should, I don't know, recruite more people to help take care of the world. I know we can try harder, and that we are far from perfect, but we aren't completely bad. Nothing is completely bad or completely good, unless you count God and the devil. I'm sorry if my posts sound a little like, erm, a psycologist on a rampage or something (they probably do), I just love to state my opinion, and I can even be bit "overly-optomistic" on this particular topic. My dad is a pastor, so I think I got part of the inspiration from him (which is good, not bad, by the way), and I tend to be a bit of a daydreamer, so I always hope for the best. I like to contemplate our purpose, so if it seems like I have a bit of a preocupation with that theory, it's probably true. I live for symbolism and depth, and Iwould probably make a great (though overly-optomistic, if there is such a thing) philosepher, if I weren't already planning on becoming a vetrinarian and authoress. So, anyways, sorry for any offense I've caused.
I will now rant some more on this very contreversial subject, this time, taking science into account (or trying too, at least). I believe that humans should try [I]much[/I] harder to protect the world from themselves, but that they are not perfect and were never meant to be while on this Earth. We can do good, I know we can. We can destroy the world, we are destroying it, but, at the same time we are saving it and fixing what we have done wrong, piece by piece. Even though we are destroying faster than we are fixing right now, some people are trying to help, and the number of people trying to help is growing, slowly and gradually, but surely.
My latest inspiration for my comments here is Princess Mononoke, which I just rewatched tonight, partially because I have spent so much time on this thread. Many of my thoughts in this post relate to it a little. If you have seen, please think on it a little, it has ahappy ending where everything balances out; if you haven't seen it, try watching it some time, it really has a great story and moral. I know it's not the greatest reference ever, considering it's a fantasy genre anime, but it really has a good point. We hurt nature, nature hurts us, we help nature, nature helps us, and everything will all balance out eventually. I don't think I can really say much more without going into the same old speech, which practically nobody here agrees with.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Princess Mononoke, like a number of Miyazaki Hayao's films, have progress vs. nature as a motif (by progress I mean industrial). It's an ok film, but I can't say it inspires more appreciation for nature than about a hundred thousand other things I can think of. If you want environmental movies, there's Ferngully the Last Rainforest. It's not the best, but it's the most relevant.

Anyway, optimism is usually not a bad thing, but in this case I think it might hurt more than help. Only because the better a direction one thinks we're headed, the less one will do to push us in it. It will take a lot more than we're doing now to even balance the harm we're [i]currently[/i] causing to the environment, let alone make up for what we've already done. And I think rather than be optimistic, it's better to be alarmed. For the environment's sake, that is. For one's own, it's far better to be at peace. There's no question to that. Anyway, I think you get the point I'm trying to make.

Here's something nobody has really brought up. Since the Bush administration came to power, environmentally-oriented restrictions on industry have really gone lax. Much more pollution is being dumped into our waters, and more polluting gases into our air. To cut down industry costs, Bush has done everything in his power to make them worry less about environmental regulations and more about making money, since that's all he's concerned about, it appears. Anyway, step one for the average American towards helping the environment is to support a president who will be powerful yet sensitive to environmental issues. Since I haven't yet educated myself on the Democratic candidates, I can't say anything past that, but it is something to consider.

[ninetails390]

I'm not good with politics...
Anyways, um, I guess my point is that the earth isn't going to last forever anyways, so, though it is a problem, we shouldn't argue about it, just try our best to do something about it and get as many others as posible to do the same; the best we can do ist the best we can do, and we can't do any better than our best. I don't have a whole lot of time because I need to go to bed, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. :huh:

[Dagger]

Well.... yes, the earth is not going to last forever. Neither is the sun, or any number of other celestial bodies. Right now I think we're more concerned about the plants and animals (including ourselves) which populate the world's ecosystems.

Most people just can't agree on what it means to "try our best." The other day I spoke to a man whose house is powered mainly by solar panels. He rides a bike nearly everywhere he goes. I usually turn the lights off when I leave a room, and I may walk from school to Best Buy without attempting to catch the bus, but if I [i]can[/i] do more, should I? If it's feasible for my family to use solar energy, should we? Some folks will always think that certain measures are unreasonable, or at least incompatible with their way of life.

Selfish though it sounds, I can't imagine doing everything within my power to help the environment.... because that would be extraordinarily inconvenient. :/

~Dagger~