# Are humans useful to earth at all?



## EvilLugiaXD (Feb 7, 2012)

Sorry if this is one of those cliche questions, but I really want to know how useful the human race is to earth ( besides destroying it)?


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 7, 2012)

trying to save pandas who have doomed themselves to extinction by having a retarded diet


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 7, 2012)

Your question is dumb and you should feel dumb. 

"The Earth" is an inanimate lump. 

It does not have use for much of anything.


----------



## AGNOSCO (Feb 7, 2012)

considering the human race is still pretty young, we still have a lot to learn. and we do now have the technology to make a big difference, its just those in power and those who influence the the ones in power keep putting it all down in the interest of profit.

How are humans usefull to the earth? how are all the animals and plants usefull to the earth? how is water usefull to the earth?
the earth is a rock floating though space, so if anything its usefull to us.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 7, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> ( besides destroying it)?



So destroying it is useful?

Or are you just really bad at misanthropy?

Given the bullshit pants-on-head-retarded nature of the question, I'd guess the latter.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 7, 2012)

Hate to be cynical, but is any animal "useful" to the earth? 

I mean, some animals are pretty instrumental parts of the food chain, but that's about it.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Feb 7, 2012)

there's no point in asking. The dimension of your intentions are implying Earth is detrimental for the universe to exist without, which it isn't

If the original mass doesn't affect the course of the universe, nothing that affects it matters


----------



## Cain (Feb 7, 2012)

The earth will be lonely.


----------



## AGNOSCO (Feb 7, 2012)

This is Tides said:


> there's no point in asking. The dimension of your intentions are implying Earth is detrimental for the universe to exist without, which it isn't
> 
> If the original mass doesn't affect the course of the universe, nothing that affects it matters



matter works differently when observed. so in therory and taking into consideration that if we are the only life in the universe and if the earth had no life, nothing to observe the universe. the universe wouldent exist.


----------



## TechnoGypsy (Feb 7, 2012)

We affect the environment, but as far as the earth is concerned we're only scratching the surface of it.


----------



## Mr PyroCopter (Feb 7, 2012)

Yes but we are also screwing up the ozone layer a whole lot ;3 become eco friendly, buy a hybrid but don't be too smug about it!.


----------



## Zydala (Feb 7, 2012)

cynical answer: ten million years in the future the earth won't exist. not much use thinking about it. The world goes on with or without us.

optimistic answer: we have the ability to reverse erosion of environments and endangerment of animals, to preserve and protect.

(too bad most of what we undo is our fault :V)


----------



## AGNOSCO (Feb 7, 2012)

Mr PyroCopter said:


> Yes but we are also screwing up the ozone layer a whole lot ;3 become eco friendly, buy a hybrid but don't be too smug about it!.


using a hybrid is a placebo, considering many power stations are coal fired or gas, even the nuclear ones fuck up the environment eather trough the waste or the plutonium being used to bomb people. Anyway heavy industry is a major player in fucking up the environment. yet the blame is shifted to us and we have to pay the price.



Zydala said:


> cynical answer: ten million years in the future  the earth won't exist. not much use thinking about it. The world goes on  with or without us.
> 
> optimistic answer: we have the ability to reverse erosion of environments and endangerment of animals, to preserve and protect.
> 
> (too bad most of what we undo is our fault :V)


i think we have enough time to sort it out and live on without the earth. but concidering the state of the human race at the moment im seriously thinking we wont push 1000 years.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Obviously the earth needs humans to go on harrowing adventures in order to circumvent the laws laid down by the other astral bodies in order to govern themselves. You never heard of a goat going on an epic quest to slaughter the great jupiter. Goats are just terrible at the whole, impressive pose with a rising sun background. 
Jeez man. 

In all honesty though, this question just reeks up misinformation and ignorance. Like there's this assumption that everything lives in perfect harmony with mother nature, except those dickish humans, and ebola. In reality a lot of animals fuck up the environment around them, termites are actually some really destructive bastards and probably come close to human levels of destruction if size is accounted for. 
In all honesty humans are one of the few species that will actively attempt to help another species recover, and they are by far the only species to do it on a large systematic level. 
Nothing is useful to an inanimate rock. That assumes a level of consciousness that the rock has a goal, a desire. A better question would be is humans are ultimately beneficial or detrimental to the continued life on earth. Then it comes down to how much one values new species, conservation, and so on over the extinction and fundamental change of other species.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 7, 2012)

TechnoGypsy said:


> We affect the environment, but as far as the earth is concerned we're only scratching the surface of it.



That's what you think! I hear the USA has been experimenting with radio waves to alter the ionosphere and use it to change the movement of tectonic plates to create earthquakes. They claim it's just 'research' but I know the truth!


----------



## AGNOSCO (Feb 7, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> That's what you think! I hear the USA has been experimenting with radio waves to alter the ionosphere and use it to change the movement of tectonic plates to create earthquakes. They claim it's just 'research' but I know the truth!


HAARP  stop stealing my material. im supposed to be the conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Onnes (Feb 7, 2012)

AGNOSCO said:


> matter works differently when observed. so in therory and taking into consideration that if we are the only life in the universe and if the earth had no life, nothing to observe the universe. the universe wouldent exist.



No. Fuck no. I-am-going-to-come-at-you-with-a-knife-while-you-sleep no. Conscious observation plays absolutely no part in any serious interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is significant, irreversible interaction which causes decoherence and wave function collapse, and it doesn't matter whether that interaction comes from a human observer with an atomic force microscope or some random molecule drifting through space.


----------



## AGNOSCO (Feb 7, 2012)

Onnes said:


> No. Fuck no. I-am-going-to-come-at-you-with-a-knife-while-you-sleep no. Conscious observation plays absolutely no part in any serious interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is significant, irreversible interaction which causes decoherence and wave function collapse, and it doesn't matter whether that interaction comes from a human observer with an atomic force microscope or some random molecule drifting through space.


yeh, if theres no life, there is nothing to comprehend or think about the universe however how small the thought might be. so if the universe had no life there is nothing to comprehend the universe so how could it exist? our brains and every other lifeforms brains decode the universe to a readable state, if theres nothing to decode the universe into a readable state then how can it exist?


----------



## Onnes (Feb 7, 2012)

AGNOSCO said:


> yeh, if theres no life, there is nothing to comprehend or think about the universe however how small the thought might be. so if the universe had no life there is nothing to comprehend the universe so how could it exist? our brains and every other lifeforms brains decode the universe to a readable state, if theres nothing to decode the universe into a readable state then how can it exist?



Goddamn, do I hope you are just trolling me.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 7, 2012)

AGNOSCO said:


> yeh, if theres no life, there is nothing to comprehend or think about the universe however how small the thought might be. so if the universe had no life there is nothing to comprehend the universe so how could it exist? our brains and every other lifeforms brains decode the universe to a readable state, if theres nothing to decode the universe into a readable state then how can it exist?



Age of the universe - Number of years life has been extant on the Earth = ???

See, clearly this is an argument in favour of creationism.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

AGNOSCO said:


> yeh, if theres no life, there is nothing to comprehend or think about the universe however how small the thought might be. so if the universe had no life there is nothing to comprehend the universe so how could it exist? our brains and every other lifeforms brains decode the universe to a readable state, if theres nothing to decode the universe into a readable state then how can it exist?


Oh hi. It appears you've stumbled on the basic levels of philosophy, particularly the metaphysical theory of relativity. To further enjoy the experience I would suggest the writings of Berkeley. Please be advised that quantum physics does not associate with relativity. 

By the by, the spoiler to that is that you have a belief that there is a physical manifestation of the world. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound, because whether it is observed or not matter exists, molecules in the air will follow the laws of physics and form sounds waves. 
A rock is a lump of matter, the matter will exist with or without humans or any form of life. It is only the abstract concept which is formed via human experience. Life is required to create the concept of "rock" but ultimately, the atoms will be there, in the same structure, just sitting there, whether or not someone comes along and says "what is this then? I shall call it a rock" 
the rock did not spontaneously come into existence with the development of life. 

that's a philosophical theory anyway, and generally the one you get as the basis of most scientific theories.


----------



## AGNOSCO (Feb 7, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Age of the universe - Number of years life has been extant on the Earth = ???
> 
> See, clearly this is an argument in favour of creationism.


NO, fuck you.



Onnes said:


> Goddamn, do I hope you are just trolling me.


I smoke weed, drink mushroom tea and smoke DMT and watch joe rogan podcasts.
im not trolling you, thats just my own personal theoretical opinion. and who cares if its right or wrong. at least im thinking about shit dawg.
ive had long and interesting conversations with people about that kind of shit. and dont for one second think of some dumbass ether.



Fay V said:


> Oh hi. It appears you've stumbled on the basic  levels of philosophy, particularly the metaphysical theory of  relativity. To further enjoy the experience I would suggest the writings  of Berkeley. Please be advised that quantum physics does not associate  with relativity.
> 
> By the by, the spoiler to that is that you have a belief that there is a  physical manifestation of the world. If a tree falls in a forest and no  one is around to hear it, it makes a sound, because whether it is  observed or not matter exists, molecules in the air will follow the laws  of physics and form sounds waves.
> A rock is a lump of matter, the matter will exist with or without humans  or any form of life. It is only the abstract concept which is formed  via human experience. Life is required to create the concept of "rock"  but ultimately, the atoms will be there, in the same structure, just  sitting there, whether or not someone comes along and says "what is this  then? I shall call it a rock"
> ...


now your the kind of guy i would love to smoke a joint with.



oh yeh im also open to correction anytime, im not some subborn religious type.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 7, 2012)

What is beneifical or not depends hihgly on the contenxt. Humans find some things useful, and somethings now. As for the existance of planet, earth. Life, eveb as a whole, has practically zero effect.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 7, 2012)

No race (that I'm aware of) is "useful" to the Earth, nor harmful: Nothing's about to stop Earth's rotation, cool the core, or mass-scatter the planet. It's a fucking planet: You can't do much horrifying stuff until you get into the high-teraton / low-petaton range. When it comes to "useful to Earth's ecosystem", we're around the same level as anything else, the difference being improved success rates (both in regards to repairing damage and causing it, usually because they're done intentionally by us and common belief is that a Zebra Mussel doesn't know what the fuck's going on when it crashes a Great Lake's ecosystem).

We - by no means - are "destroyers" of the Planet. Also, as mentioned by others, when it comes to "Balance of Nature", there is none. Or, more accurately, not one in a metaphysical sense. Shit lives, shit dies. Nothing gives a crap about "harmony" or "balance" in nature, and anyone trying to spin you such a tale is at best insane and at worst an insane misanthrope.


----------



## Mr PyroCopter (Feb 7, 2012)

So basis is we'll fk it up anyway but what i've learned from (Stellvia of the universe)(anime) is that we could in future make shields to protect us from supernova blasts like the sun will become in *.***.*** amount of years or whatever but they had 180 yrs to prepare so i think we'll have a better chance .


----------



## Ibuuyk (Feb 7, 2012)

No.


----------



## TechnoGypsy (Feb 7, 2012)

Mr PyroCopter said:


> So basis is we'll fk it up anyway but what i've learned from (Stellvia of the universe)(anime) is that we could in future make shields to protect us from supernova blasts like the sun will become in *.***.*** amount of years or whatever but they had 180 yrs to prepare so i think we'll have a better chance .


We would've left Earth way before the sun goes kaboom. Anyways, if we were still on the earth, what point would it be to build shields be if there'd be no sun after it exploded?


----------



## Onnes (Feb 7, 2012)

TechnoGypsy said:


> We would've left Earth way before the sun goes kaboom. Anyways, if we were still on the earth, what point would it be to build shields be if there'd be no sun after it exploded?



The Sun will become a problem well before it actually explodes. First it has to become red giant, and when it does it will completely envelope the Earth's orbit. This is all assuming that its constant mass loss doesn't screw up our orbit even well before then.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Feb 8, 2012)

Well, we grace the earth with our presence. I wonder if we should ask the earth how it feels about us. "Hello, Earth, we're the humans and we'd like a report on whether or not you like us."

And if the earth could talk back it would say something like "Well, how are my little humans doing. It's nice of you to check up on me and ask. Are you washing your underwear every day and would it kill you to get enough fiber in your diet. And do you eat chicken noodle soup when you get a cold and are you going to give me grandchildren?" And then after hearing us being compared to our brothers the animals so many times, we'd wonder why we even bothered to ask (overprotective Jewish) Mother Earth how we're doing. 

 A world without humans means no animal would be pretentious enough to ask such stupid questions like that one.


----------



## Tao (Feb 8, 2012)

Humans will eventually kill the environments and all standards of civiliaztion


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 8, 2012)

Earth don't care. I bet if Earth had a will, it would prefer to be a barren rock. Things are less complicated that way.

Honestly, I don't understand the desire to separate mankind from Earth. We aren't a foreign invader, we were created here. If Earth does have a will, then it's destroying itself through us. Woah, and with that reasoning, I go back to claiming Earth would prefer to be a barren rock.

On the other hand, I doubt it has a will, and I don't think we're destroying it at all. If we somehow make Earth unable to support life, we'll have destroyed ourselves. Earth will still be there.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Feb 8, 2012)

Sometimes I think the Earth gets a massage from all the stuff we do on it. And places like Florida and Scandinavia make me think we're giving it a happy ending.


----------



## kentenko (Feb 8, 2012)

Think of it this way... if there were no humans... there would be no furries! But on a serious note deciding whether or not the human race is useful to earth is a thing that can't really be given a correct answer... The way I see it, the earth really has no need of humans... Or any life to be honest... whether we are here or not in the long run it won't matter... if what science says is correct the Sun _will_ explode and when it does it's taking the whole universe with it... So it's really a question of are _*we*_ doing anything worthwhile while we are still alive? The earth has no feelings, it doesn't have emotions, it doesn't have a brain... That's how I see it anyways...


----------



## Telnac (Feb 8, 2012)

An interesting article written by a proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis proposed that intelligent life may be how living worlds like the Earth "reproduce."  In essence, the destiny of humanity is to terraform and colonize every barren rock we encounter so that the descendants of present life forms from Earth may outlive the Earth itself when the Sun exhausts its fuel.

I think it's a load of deep-fried bollocks myself, but it was an interesting point of view nonetheless.  I believe the Earth is nothing more than a ball of mostly molten rock that happens to harbor life on its surface.  What any of that life does means pretty much nothing to the Earth itself.


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 8, 2012)

We live on top of the Earth's surface, so we're kinda like it's hat. Have you seen some of the people at Wal-Mart? We're a fucking ugly hat.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 8, 2012)

AGNOSCO said:


> NO, fuck you.
> 
> 
> I smoke weed, drink mushroom tea and smoke DMT and watch joe rogan podcasts.
> ...



I honestly completely doubt that considering you seem to be at the pot head level of philosophy


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 8, 2012)

Fay V said:


> I honestly completely doubt that considering you seem to be at the pot head level of philosophy



(Middle of ecology. We were learning about the nature of the universe because... well hey. You gotta start somewhere.)

Stoner: Wait... wait... Jeff (Teacher's name, we go by first names.) What if all of this were just wrong. 
Jeff: What do you mean?
Stoner: Like, all of it. What if they got everything completely wrong. 
Jeff: Well they probably didn't. 
Stoner: _BUT WHAT IF THEY DID. _


----------



## Kaamos (Feb 8, 2012)

Well_, some _humans aren't useful to anything at all.


----------



## EvilLugiaXD (Feb 8, 2012)

The reason why I asked this is to get a better understanding of our purpose. I personally see the human race as a virus. 

Let me explain, I have been doing thinking on how we came to be, and instead helping the planet like other creatures. We cause wars, have an intolerance for each others ideas and opinions, and we aren't very fond of helping people for the sake of helping them. It either has to be a reward given to the person who is helping or something that would benefit his or hers desire. When I say helping I do not mean it has in a barrow money thing, I mean helping them with the basics such as if they are struggling with a certain ability (reading, writing or speaking). 

I truly believe most people would just walk by a person like that thinking they are too lazy and had dropped out of high or something a long the lines of that, but in reality the person is to poor to attend and they are about 30 years of age. 

Also add on the fact that they will not help each other (unless it was a tribe of humans) unless there is a award. Now add the fact that they destroy the environment by oil spills, nuclear power plants melting down releasing plenty of radiation that is is starting to effect life all around us starting with marine animals, fires to destroy unwanted forest in the way of a resource, and only saving species out of coveting them (not out of the reason that they are unique from others). 

Hope that helps with the clearing up of things.


----------



## TechnoGypsy (Feb 8, 2012)

^Here's something for you then
http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> The reason why I asked this is to get a better understanding of our purpose. I personally see the human race as a virus.
> 
> Let me explain, I have been doing thinking on how we came to be, and instead helping the planet like other creatures. We cause wars, have an intolerance for each others ideas and opinions, and we aren't very fond of helping people for the sake of helping them. It either has to be a reward given to the person who is helping or something that would benefit his or hers desire. When I say helping I do not mean it has in a barrow money thing, I mean helping them with the basics such as if they are struggling with a certain ability (reading, writing or speaking).
> 
> ...



How much of a fuck do you think a wolf gives if it finds a wolf from another pack wounded in the forest? 

Other animals don't "help" the planet because they're just nice like that. They do it because that's what they do to survive. Bacteria don't decompose stuff because "oh dear me it would be such a mess if this piled up," but because they're fucking hungry and dead things don't have immune systems. Lions don't give a fuck if population control reduces the chances of disease, they want meat. Nature isn't balanced by good will and rainbows, organisms exploit surpluses, and if they can't they kill each other until there's no longer a shortage. And you know what happens if they can't keep up? If one species is threatened by another? If a habitat gets wiped out?

They die. They die off, and none but a human would try to save them. 

If humanity has a fault, it's thinking we'd be that special.


----------



## BRN (Feb 8, 2012)

This thread is horrific.

a) the earth cannot utilise; "the earth" doesn't even exists as a unified concept, it's a ball of rock and metal held together by its own gravity and held in orbit by a star's gravity

b) "what if" statements are meaningless unless you can conceive of a way to prove them wrong (falsification/verifiability principle)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> Sorry if this is one of those cliche questions, but I really want to know how useful the human race is to earth ( besides destroying it)?


  A species has to be 'useful' for something, you say? Just go away.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 8, 2012)

The earth is a merciful god. It's ultimate goal however is to destroy every other planet and overthrow the sun, so I guess we could come in useful for that.

Also sigh I'm sick of bronies and 90s kids of course, but the most annoying kind of person is the kind who thinks "the human race is bad" is a controversial or original idea. Christ, of course we're bad. Stop making such a big deal out of it. Thinking we're bad doesn't make you special. It's old news.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> The reason why I asked this is to get a better understanding of our purpose. I personally see the human race as a virus.
> 
> Let me explain, I have been doing thinking on how we came to be, and instead helping the planet like other creatures. We cause wars, have an intolerance for each others ideas and opinions, and we aren't very fond of helping people for the sake of helping them. It either has to be a reward given to the person who is helping or something that would benefit his or hers desire. When I say helping I do not mean it has in a barrow money thing, I mean helping them with the basics such as if they are struggling with a certain ability (reading, writing or speaking).
> 
> ...



Stop watching the matrix, it lies to you. seriously. Have you ever actually studied animals at all beyond "omg woofs and sooooo noble". Here's some facts about the lovely animals that you seem to think get along perfectly with one another like a disney cartoon. 
Both termites and ants will go to war with other termites or ants. There are ant species that are so heavily designed for combat they don't actually do anything else. They take slaves to care for their colonies and eggs. 
Apes, particularly chimpanzees have been seen to practice guerilla warfare with neighboring ape tribes. 
Concerning brain injuries, rhesus monkies do not nurse the injured but will immediately reject the individual with brain damage.
Sea urchins can completely obliterate an area, making it appear like an underwater desert. A lush area full of kelp and fish, completely and totally eaten away. 
A ton of animals actually leave their sick or wounded to die painfully. Not to mention all the species that practice infanticide in order to make sure their baby survives. 

Human beings develop hospitals, human beings develop medicine, human beings develop homeless shelters, conservation programs, war relief funds, adoption programs.
Think of a program like make-a-wish. For just a moment image a small child with cancer. They've been seen by a myriad of doctors, each one with years of training just to care for others. They've used dozens of machines. Each which took years to create for the sole purpose to help others. Tons of scientists (all of whom also had to invest years of study) billions in research, all of that to help cancer patients. Imagine the nurses, their investment in school, their insane hours just to care for the ill. 
This one hospital room represents at least a century of combined time and effort, just in hopes to cure the sick. 
but not everything will work, the child is dying, so what do we do? we donate billions to a program just so they could have one wish, just to make them happy. 
What other species of the face of this earth not only invests time into the sick, invests time into the dying, but attempts to actually make a dying person happy. 

the human race is not perfect, in fact many of us are dicks. We are the animals that we like to look down on, but we are special animals. We do some amazing things as a species and it's downright insulting to call humans a virus when so many people actually follow altruistic pursuits. 

If you're so worried about the state of the human sole purpose then man up. Make a use for yourself. There are so many people on this forum alone that volunteer, that have put themselves in physical danger to help others, that have invested their lives toward things like healthcare and education. 
Anyone can bitch that the world is doomed and we have no purpose because we aren't a disney cartoon. It takes a real person to grow some balls and carve out a purpose for themselves.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 8, 2012)

The human race is completely incapable of destroying the earth.  Even if we combined the use of every single nuclear weapon that existed at the height of the Cold War arms race into a single strategic blast, we still wouldn't destroy the earth.  (We'd do an excellent job ridding the earth of ourselves, though.)

As for what use we have to the earth?  We're growing capable enough to actively shape the course the evolution of life on earth takes.  As was already pointed out, we are stepping into the role of the earth's stewards with animal and environmental conservation efforts, not to mention our charitable efforts to help each other and improve ourselves as a whole.

But we're not any more separate from the earth than any other form of life on earth.  We're as inescapably tied as every other living thing here.

Also, yeah, seconding the stop watching the Matrix request.  It's interesting but pulp at this point.  Virii invade and live within other living things for the purpose of consuming bits of that living thing and reproducing themselves.  As disrespectful as some humans are to human environments, we are decidedly not virus-like in our nature.

Just because many of us are dicks to each other doesn't mean that we're useless or harmful to the earth.  Yeah, we put people down and kick 'em when they're down, we argue, we fight, and we go to war over the littlest things, but that's not us hurting the earth.  That's us hurting ourselves and our environment, and history is rich with advice good and bad on how to stop doing that.

That's where our problem lies.  It's not the earth that needs saving from anything.  It's us and the environment and animals we depend on for survival who need saving.  As for the rest of our charitable efforts?  That's mainly us stepping into the role of the dominant form of surface life, not as saviors of the earth, but as stewards and shapers of the earth.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 8, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Or are you just really bad at misanthropy?





EvilLugiaXD said:


> I personally see the human race as a virus
> 
> [hurr hurr hoomans r evil and mean]



Thanks for clearing that up then.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 8, 2012)

Don't worry OP, we will kill the entire human race in a massive Nuclear war within 50 years.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Tao said:


> Humans will eventually kill the environments and all standards of civiliaztion


 Not going to happen. At absolute worst, we're looking at "blast back to stone age w/ major ecological damage". Earth is a hard-as-fuck devil who can take multi-Teraton impacts to the chin and go "Gimme some more!" The _entire_ nuclear arsenal of the _entire world_ is 6.4 Gigatons. We're about three OoM short for causing a global extinction event, as opposed to a shit-ton of minor environmental destructions through either raw explosive power or radiation. Let's just assume - assume - that every nuclear weapon is fired at once, with optimal spread for maximum damage. Now let's also get really crazy and say each Warhead can render worthless - entirely worthless - 1600km^2 (or that every nuclear warhead will turn 40kmx40km into wasteland) of land. This is about four times the surface area of Nagasaki, made total and utter shit with maximized dickishness for every single nuclear warhead. Now, let's also assume every single warhead lands - not a single one is shot from the sky, because humanity is going "Fuck it, let's kill everything".

You have fucked over _25%_ of Earth's surface. Wait, maybe I meant 250% Surely I meant that, if not 2500%, or at least 125%? No, just 25%. 25% of Earth's Land Mass (which also means none of these nuclear weapons are landing anywhere near coastal settlements, since otherwise that reduces the 25% even further).

Nuclear fallout? Unlike _Fallout_ may portray, or _The Matrix_, the world is not PERMANENT WASTELAND. It's still fucked up, yeah... but there's a reason Nuclear Shelters are meant to last only a few years, and it's not because that's all you can get with the food. The effect of a nuclear explosion versus, say, a nuclear meltdown, is rather big.

Humanity would have to purposefully go out of its way to do as much damage to the environment as possible to completely fuck over the entire world (as well as "all standards of civilization"). So far, I don't see the "Fuck the World" party gaining strength in the US / UK / wherever political scenes. So try again.



EvilLugiaXD said:


> The reason why I asked this is to get a better understanding of our purpose. I personally see the human race as a virus.


 And you need to stop watching th-



Fay V said:


> Stop watching the matrix, it lies to you.


 Blast it!



EvilLugiaXD said:


> Let me explain, I have been doing thinking on how we came to be, and instead helping the planet like other creatures.


 Er, no other creatures help the planet. They help _themselves_. They don't give a fuck about the planet, and would very willingly consign every non-necessary (to them) species to extinction if it meant "FOOD, GLORIOUS FOOD AND SNU-SNU!"



EvilLugiaXD said:


> We cause wars,


 As do Chimps, a number of Insects, it's been theorized that Dolphin / Whale pods sometimes have wars...

Oh, wait, doesn't count because "HYOOMANZ!" :V



EvilLugiaXD said:


> have an intolerance for each others ideas and opinions,


 As well as a tolerance of such. Furthermore, it's a bit odd to criticize people for something only people have: "If only them Hyoomanz could see the finer points of _Ferngully_, just like my pet Toto!" Toto doesn't understand Ferngully. More likely than not, they don't even understand the basic principle of a TV. 



EvilLugiaXD said:


> and we aren't very fond of helping people for the sake of helping them.


 Charity. Hospitals. Police Officers. Humanitarian Aid. 

Oh, wait, again "BAW HYOOMANZ!"



EvilLugiaXD said:


> It either has to be a reward given to the person who is helping or something that would benefit his or hers desire.


 Five dollars that at some point in this post Evil's going to claim "BUT NOT ME I'M BETTER THAN THE REST, WHY DO ONLY I / WE UNDERSTAND?"



EvilLugiaXD said:


> When I say helping I do not mean it has in a barrow money thing, I mean helping them with the basics such as if they are struggling with a certain ability (reading, writing or speaking).


 Free public education? Tutors? 



EvilLugiaXD said:


> I truly believe most people would just walk by a person like that thinking they are too lazy and had dropped out of high or something a long the lines of that,


 Protip: Get your head out of your ass and / or stop associating with rabid misanthropes. It'll do you a world of good for your perception of both humanity and the world at large.



EvilLugiaXD said:


> Also add on the fact that they


 I'll take the use of "they", as though OP is not one, as confirmation of "BUT I BE DIFF'RENT!"



EvilLugiaXD said:


> will not help each other (unless it was a tribe of humans) unless there is a award.


 What reward is there for the Red Cross? What reward is there for giving $20 to a man asking for change on a street corner? What does Terry Pratchett get for donating money to save Orangutans?



EvilLugiaXD said:


> Now add the fact that they destroy the environment by oil spills, nuclear power plants melting down releasing plenty of radiation that is is starting to effect life all around us starting with marine animals,


 ... Did you try to pass off Nuclear Meltdowns as a purposeful, intentional act of malice by Humanity? Furthermore, did you just try to imply that Nuclear Power is one of the most _harmful_ of the energy systems?

Oh, and again, nice job ignoring examples of other animals fucking up the wildlife: Why don't you ask Australia how their visiting Rabbits / Toads are helping their ecology. :V



EvilLugiaXD said:


> fires to destroy unwanted forest in the way of a resource,


 Care to provide me some examples of such, without turning to _Avatar_ or _Ferngully_? As, and it may just be me being ignorant here, I'm fairly certain that "forest" qualifies as a "resource", and that anyone caught causing massive fires and destroying large amounts of woods because "I WANT MAH IROHN" is going to get such a slap from environmental agencies (as well as from their superiors / rivals for wasting such extreme amounts of wood through burning instead of cutting down)...



EvilLugiaXD said:


> and only saving species out of coveting them (not out of the reason that they are unique from others).


 Yes, I'm sure the average person covets the Acha Tugi Long-fingered Frog or the Nassau Grouper.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> -Misanthropic garbage-



The others said it best. Humans, we aren't the perfect animals, but take a look at other species and compare them to us. Instead of bitching like an adolescent emo twat, get up and actually do something to instigate change instead of complaining on the internet how "HYOMANZ R HORRIBL".


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 8, 2012)

Tbh I see no good humans have done to the earth. Maybe fixing our own problems, but the earth would've been better off without us.
But no need for worries, we will eventually wipe ourselves out


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Tbh I see no good humans have done to the earth.


 Tell me, what good can you see that Dolphins have caused? Chimps? Cats? Dogs? Pandas? Deer? Salmon? Crows? Alligators? Hell, _any_ animal?

Take your time coming up with an answer.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Tell me, what good can you see that Dolphins have caused? Chimps? Cats? Dogs? Pandas? Deer? Salmon? Crows? Alligators? Hell, _any_ animal?
> 
> Take your time coming up with an answer.



Bomb sniffing dogs? Salmon cakes? Venison roast? :V
Dolphins get caught and get processed in tuna. :V


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> Let me explain, I have been doing thinking on how we came to be, and instead helping the planet like other creatures.



If 'helping the planet like other creatures' consists of shitting on the lawn like my dog, then yes, we are a horrible race of people.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 8, 2012)

Oh Attaman reminded me of something. Even nuclear meltdowns don't completely obliterate life. If you look at the Chernobyl area it's not a terrible wasteland of diseased mutants. 
Wildlife is actually flourishing in the area. The wolf and deer population are doing great and flourishing in a natural balance of prey and predator. 
We also have a new form of life. Mold is growing inside the building. It uses melanin to take in radiation and get energy. That is one of the most ballin' things ever. 

Also interesting fact. Forest fires can be beneficial to ecosystems. It puts nutrients in the soil and clears out old junk. yellowstone park will once in a while do a controlled fire in order to better stimulate growth and mather sure a natural fire doesn't destroy the whole park. 
but yeah, hyoomans are ebil


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Tell me, what good can you see that Dolphins have caused? Chimps? Cats? Dogs? Pandas? Deer? Salmon? Crows? Alligators? Hell, _any_ animal?
> 
> Take your time coming up with an answer.


At least dolphins, chimps, cats, dogs, pandas, deer, salmon, crows, alligators, any animal don't spew fucking thousands of tonnes of toxic gases in air, nor do they chop off rainforests to get a measley buck.
And they maintain the ecosystem, food chains and other kind of things, sustaining life, whereas humans fuck things up when we need a bit more space to live.
Take your time coming up with a reply


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> And they maintain the ecosystem, food chains and other kind of things, sustaining life...



Haha, that is adorable. You make it sound like they all have these little meetings where they decide who eats what. "Hey wolves, you should stop eating the deer now, they're starting to get a bit low on numbers. Hey snakes, we're a bit low on mice as they had a poor season, but the rabbits said they can spare a few".


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> At least dolphins, chimps, cats, dogs, pandas, deer, salmon, crows, alligators, any animal don't spew fucking thousands of tonnes of toxic gases in air,


 Funnily enough, though, cows _do_. I assume you look forward to their mass-eradication?



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> nor do they chop off rainforests to get a measley buck.


 Nor do Humans purposefully go around fucking up Australia's ecosystem in mass-orgies and consumptions. By this logic, Humans are better than Rabbits and Toads for the Earth! Huzzah!



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> And they maintain the ecosystem,


 Again, if you think there's some sort of "natural balance" that animals purposefully try to maintain, either pull your head from your ass or stop hanging around with insane misanthropes. 



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> food chains and other kind of things,


 Hey, hey Sarcastic. How do Zebra Mussels maintain the Food Chain of the Great Lakes? :3c



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Take your time coming up with a reply


 Would you prefer I spend five more minutes to give some handy links of animals doing the above? I mean, I'm _sure_ you can dig up a bunch of scientific links about how Animals purposefully maintain the harmony / balance of nature purely out of love of the planet, and when there becomes an imbalance animals _never_ take advantage of it like them filthy hyoomanz.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> At least dolphins, chimps, cats, dogs, pandas, deer, salmon, crows, alligators, any animal don't spew fucking thousands of tonnes of toxic gases in air, nor do they chop off rainforests to get a measley buck.
> And they maintain the ecosystem, food chains and other kind of things, sustaining life, whereas humans fuck things up when we need a bit more space to live.
> Take your time coming up with a reply



When left to their own devices deer will completely tear through foliage and will starve. This has been shown time and time again. It's not for a "buck" but it is for a quick meal, they don't regulate themselves at all. 
The same is said for rabbits and many other animals. We've seen it time and time again. Animals do not regulate themselves, regulation comes from being killed. In the case of predators, regulation comes from over eating and starving to death. 
In the case of termites they do significant damage, it's just that they're so small it isn't noticed. 

Apes are not completely immune to money. They'll actually screw over their tribe, prostitute themselves, and all sorts of nasty behavior that is detrimental to the group due to a "measly buck" 

Dolphins murder for shits and giggles. It looks like they just fuck up other species because they can. 

Animals are not different, the only difference between a human and the other animals is what consistutes reward, and the tools to receive it. 
I would bet that you that if an ape were to come across the concept of biological warfare they would use it, they would fuck up the rainforest, they would destroy the area if it promised some food and sex.


----------



## BRN (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> At least dolphins, chimps, cats, dogs, pandas, deer, salmon, crows, alligators, any animal don't spew fucking thousands of tonnes of toxic gases in air, nor do they chop off rainforests to get a measley buck.


Animals have no need to spew toxic gases in the air. The human race in its current level of civilisation does need to do that - just like every animal destroys what it needs to destroy to survive. Dolphins have no need for bucks, so they don't chop down the rainforest, but they do, like us, use up resources as tools - just like we use the rainforest.





> And they maintain the ecosystem, food chains and other kind of things, sustaining life, whereas humans fuck things up when we need a bit more space to live.


Animals don't actively maintain the ecosystem, they _are_ the ecosystem. They destroy and ravage each other and everything just as we, as animals, would. Animals will casually raze an environment to survive with no concept of long-term sustainability, much as we do.We just do it better because there's, you know, more of us.


----------



## VoidBat (Feb 8, 2012)

Why yes indeed.
You see Mother Earth has this major itch in her pus-infected womb. Now, this black pus is worth lots of money to us, not to mention all those precious minerals, so by relieving her of this great burden we're doing her a big favour in the end.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 8, 2012)

Fay V said:
			
		

> Also interesting fact. Forest fires can be beneficial to ecosystems. It  puts nutrients in the soil and clears out old junk. yellowstone park  will once in a while do a controlled fire in order to better stimulate  growth and mather sure a natural fire doesn't destroy the whole park.



Ignoring forest fires, fires alone can be good. In South Africa, Fynbos (as well as some Californian plants and apparently there are others) actually need fires. The fires both clear out other plants and the smoke causes the seeds to germinate. Without a fire every 9 or 10 years the plants will go extinct. When they sell Fynbos seeds you can get seeds that have been deliberately smoked to make them more likely to grow. 



			
				Sarcastic Coffeecup said:
			
		

> At least dolphins, chimps, cats, dogs, pandas, deer, salmon, crows,  alligators, any animal don't spew fucking thousands of tonnes of toxic  gases in air, nor do they chop off rainforests to get a measley buck.
> And they maintain the ecosystem, food chains and other kind of things,  sustaining life, whereas humans fuck things up when we need a bit more  space to live.



They do release toxic gasses. It's part of both respiration and digestion. 
They don't maintain the ecosystem, they have reached a balance. For example predator and prey levels fluctuate from year to year because when there are more prey it allows more predators to survive. When the predators increase the prey does badly and they decrease. The decrease prey kills the predators by starvation and then the prey can flourish and it all starts again. That balance has been made gradually, much slower than the rate at which humans are currently able to advance. If you have animals that advanced as fast as us they would also ruin ecosystems and kill everything. That's exactly what happens when you have invasive species. It throws the balance off, other species go extinct. Humans will settle at some point in the future but at the moment we are at a time between stable states of the environment.


----------



## Dreaming (Feb 8, 2012)

Yes and No.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Feb 8, 2012)

Humans are bad
That's why I'm glad I'm a dragon :V


----------



## Zydrate Junkie (Feb 8, 2012)

We are the most useful thing on this planet, as we are the only species currently that can postpone the Kitten Infestation. :v


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 8, 2012)

They're useful if you don't put them in a time capsule when they die :V


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Funnily enough, though, cows _do_. I assume you look forward to their mass-eradication?


I  do know cows release a lot of methane, but it is hard to compare  this  and  this  as equals





Attaman said:


> Again, if you think there's some sort of  "natural balance" that animals purposefully try to maintain, either pull  your head from your ass or stop hanging around with insane  misanthropes.


 Ecosystem does not equal natural balance animals purposefully maintain.  Animals live and die so more can live and die. We don't need to bring  imported animals from another country to mess up the local ecosystem.  This happened in Finland, can't remember which species though, it was a  beaver,a rabbit or a squirrel icr.


Attaman said:


> Hey, hey Sarcastic. How do Zebra Mussels maintain the Food Chain of the Great Lakes? :3c


"there are a number of natural predators of zebra mussel. Zebra mussels have high nutritional value (Walz, 1979) and are consumed in large quantities by crayfish, waterfowl and in smaller quantities by muskrats."

Now take that Terminator power fist out of your ass and focus your efforts somewhere else ok?



Fay V said:


> When left to their own devices deer will completely tear through foliage and will starve. This has been shown time and time again. It's not for a "buck" but it is for a quick meal, they don't regulate themselves at all.
> The same is said for rabbits and many other animals. We've seen it time and time again. Animals do not regulate themselves, regulation comes from being killed. In the case of predators, regulation comes from over eating and starving to death.
> In the case of termites they do significant damage, it's just that they're so small it isn't noticed.


Whereas us, humans are in so large numbers we can manage to fuck up entire planet.
Termite damage hardly equals human damage or does it?
Scaled down termites might do more damage, but humans are wrestling in a whole other league.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 8, 2012)

Don't forget Beavers. Beavers can cause a lot of damage to either man-made enviroments or natural ones due to their dams. :V


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I  do know cows release a lot of methane, but it is hard to compare  this  and  this  as equals



Especially if you try to color people's perception.


			
				The Article said:
			
		

> Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities.
> [...]
> In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.


 Now, I know you're going to say "Gorram Hyoomanz" here, but can I ask you where Humans are coercing the cows to produce this methane? Or why "28% global methane emissions" is "hard to compare"?



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Ecosystem does not equal natural balance animals purposefully maintain.  Animals live and die so more can live and die. We don't need to bring  imported animals from another country to mess up the local ecosystem.


 And ecosystems don't need "Nasty Hyoomanz" to mess up their own. Also, once more it's not like invasive species are wrecking shit up because we trained / bred / coerced them to do so. It's because _an animal's goddamn nature_ means that if they wind up somewhere that they can thrive, they _will_ do what they can to breed like rabbits and eat like locusts while caring fuck-all for the consequences of their actions. The limiter of natural balance is not "what can we get away with without damaging the environment" but "what can we get away with without acquiring a Darwin Award for our entire species".



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> "there are a number of natural predators of zebra mussel. Zebra mussels have high nutritional value (Walz, 1979) and are consumed in large quantities by crayfish, waterfowl and in smaller quantities by muskrats."


 I like how you're trying to bullshit away the damage Zebra Mussels do to the Ecosystem with "But they feed these animals!", but the same doesn't hold true for animals that thrive under Human "invasion". Most people and animals hate them.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Now take that Terminator power fist out of your ass and focus your efforts somewhere else ok?


 Says the one who whinges about "Nasty Hyooman" damage, but white knights Zebra Mussels.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Whereas us, humans are in so large numbers we can manage to fuck up entire planet.


 ... Please tell me we aren't about to see a repeat of the "Ideas" thread where someone starts advocating "population control" / genocide. _Please_.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Scaled down termites might do more damage, but humans are wrestling in a whole other league.


 So, wait, you admit that other animals are proportionally more damaging to the environment... but we're still the worst of the worst?


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 8, 2012)

I have faith in humanity. One day we'll work together and consciously form organizations devoted to protecting nature. We will follow in the footsteps of the bears and the spider monkeys, who have those kinds of organizations too. Right? :V


----------



## Spatel (Feb 8, 2012)

We are the environment. We are nature. Put _that_ in your cock and smoke it. 

In several billion years, the sun will expand and fry all life on this miserable rock. Any chance that life has of being recorded, having its memory passed on for the rest of the universe, lives and dies with us. 

We are being quite careless as a species right now, using up our resources, accidentally killing off species before we learn about them. Killing ourselves would be our biggest crime to the planet, though. It would doom the planet, in a sense.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Especially if you try to color people's perception.
> Now, I know you're going to say "Gorram Hyoomanz" here, but can I ask you where Humans are coercing the cows to produce this methane? Or why "28% global methane emissions" is "hard to compare"?
> *What makes you think I'm one of those "Gorram hyoomanz" people? All I'm pointing out we're the ones who fuck this planet up; not white knighting animals.*
> 
> ...


Cba to make fancy post so I'll just bold my text midst your quote


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Cba to make fancy post so I'll just bold my text midst your quote


Ffff-  



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> What makes you think I'm one of those "Gorram hyoomanz" people? All I'm pointing out we're the ones who fuck this planet up; not white knighting animals.



"We're the ones who fuck this planet up; not white knighting animals." So what do you call saying Humans are the sole / main cause of the planet's fuck-ups? And writing off all the ecological damage done by Zebra Mussels because "Hey it's not humans doing it". Because the only other way I can see this is "When you look at damage done to the environment, and exclude all the damage done by non-humans, humans are the chief cause of damage to the environment", which is about as generous as "When you look at all the people murdered, and exclude all those murdered by me, you find I'm not a murderer".  



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Have I said something else? Where have I said Animals don't act like this?


In response to: 



			
				Attaman said:
			
		

> Tell me, what good can you see that Dolphins have caused? Chimps? Cats? Dogs? Pandas? Deer? Salmon? Crows? Alligators? Hell, any animal?





Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> At least dolphins, chimps, cats, dogs, pandas, deer, salmon, crows, alligators, any animal don't spew fucking thousands of tonnes of toxic gases in air, nor do they chop off rainforests to get a measley buck.
> And they maintain the ecosystem, food chains and other kind of things, sustaining life, whereas humans fuck things up when we need a bit more space to live.





Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Surely you and all the animals can hate them, but they're still part of the ecosystem there.


 So, what you're saying is, if a species does well, and expands beyond its natural borders, and does well there too (if at the plight of native species in the area)... it's alright?

Hm, what other species does this apply to. Successful, spread far beyond its original habitat, thrives in a manner that's a boon to some and a bane to others... why, that's Humans!



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Wow. That's pathetic. Was that the best thing you came up?


 In other words, you don't want to address that you're playing favorites / being hypocritical, so trying to bait me into coming up with insults instead of calling you out on this hypocrisy?



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Now why would I say or show such a thing? I'm not a retard you're talking to here.


 When someone who thinks animal damage is "awwww yeah", but human damage is "HALBGIABFA," it's typically not a reach to assume "population culling" is going to be spewed out of their mouth / keyboard at some point.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I am talking about single species, not all the animals, So yes.


 So was I. But apparently "This animal does more damage proportionally than humans" doesn't matter because... look over there! Pollution! Don't see Termites with factories do you? OPEN AND SHUT CASE!


----------



## Fay V (Feb 8, 2012)

...humans are part of the ecosystem too. That's why you get urban animals that have adapted and behave different. An ecosystem is not "other animals" and humans are on the outside looking in. The ecosystem is all the animals in the area adapting to the presence of one another. 
Look at the crows that use cars to open nuts. Dogs that use subways to get around. urban foxes, city falcons, it's all a matter of adaptation. 

You can't just say "it doesn't matter that termites fuck it up for everyone around them." "it doesn't matter that sea urchins will devastate an area. they're part of the ecosystem, but when humans do it, they're wrong and evil."


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 8, 2012)

So Attaman, to take the core out of your posts above, you think humans are not bad at all, and it is indeed the animals and wildlife who fuck the planet up?
You refuse to see any other point than your own. 
 Proceeding with this chit chat is pointless. You can stay in your wonderland where humans are gods on earth and animals are evil ne'er do wells


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> So Attaman, to take the core out of your posts above, you think humans are not bad at all, and it is indeed the animals and wildlife who fuck the planet up?


 Oh, not at all. Humans are some nasty bastards who will genocide millions on the drop of a hat, tear the fuck out of the planet, and will exploit every loophole they can.

The difference is _so does everything else_, and at least Humans will consciously (instead of unconsciously) make choices - at the same time - to either _not_ pillage everything around them, or - better yet - work to _preserve / save_ that around them.


----------



## kentenko (Feb 8, 2012)

Is there really a point to this discussion the problem with these type of threads is that there's no suggestions to remedy the situations I've seen a few but they aren't acknowledged...


----------



## Fay V (Feb 8, 2012)

I learned more about other animals being bastards.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Fay V said:


> I learned more about other animals being bastards.


Three invasive species examples.

Dolphin murder, Lion genocide, Chimpanzee warfare, Norway Rat Infanticide, more infanticide, yet more infanticide.

Insects are nature's little rapists.

It's not just humans that will shag anything that moves.

Chimpanzee warfare, and genocidal Ant warfare.


----------



## Cyril (Feb 8, 2012)

Jagged Edge said:


> The earth will be lonely.


Okay, now I'm picturing a picture of the earth with the forever alone face superimposed on it. Goddammit Jagged.

Also to try and be on-topic: What the first few people said. All the other planets are doing just fine without life, Earth doesn't need anything to keep existing.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Three invasive species examples.
> 
> Dolphin murder, Lion genocide, Chimpanzee warfare, Norway Rat Infanticide, more infanticide, yet more infanticide.
> 
> ...




Orangutans are also known to forcibly rape females of their own, and also rape human women as well.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Feb 8, 2012)

http://youtu.be/eScDfYzMEEw

I think it's relevant, but maybe I'm just biased...


----------



## EvilLugiaXD (Feb 8, 2012)

Llamapotamus said:


> http://youtu.be/eScDfYzMEEw
> 
> I think it's relevant, but maybe I'm just biased...




LOL That video has some of my points in it. Also George Carlin is pretty funny guy. 

For the sake of learning something I will ask this, what other species commit self sacrifices {killing it's own species as a offering to a god(s)} and cannibalism (other then some insects)?


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> LOL That video has some of my points in it. Also George Carlin is pretty funny guy.
> 
> For the sake of learning something I will ask this, what other species commit self sacrifices {killing it's own species as a offering to a god(s)} and cannibalism (other then some insects)?


Lots? Lions, Dolphins, Cats, Squirrels, large numbers of bird species...


----------



## Blutide (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> Sorry if this is one of those cliche questions, but I really want to know how useful the human race is to earth ( besides destroying it)?



Is cancer useful? The earth would be better off without us. Not being dark, its just the truth.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 8, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Also interesting fact. Forest fires can be beneficial to ecosystems. It puts nutrients in the soil and clears out old junk. yellowstone park will once in a while do a controlled fire in order to better stimulate growth and mather sure a natural fire doesn't destroy the whole park.



This is why sensible American forest conservationists push for prescribed burns, fires intentionally set by the Forest Service because we've become way too good at putting out fires to save ourselves for the health of the forests we use and care for.

For a variety of reasons, this was not done in the forest lands east of San Diego in 2002 and 2003, and this fact was a major contributor to the Cedar, Otay, and Paradise Fires in October/November 2003 which became the San Diego Firestorm of 2003.  (The Cedar Fire burned from Cedar Creek near Ramona west across MCAS Miramar to the very edge of University City.  I was there under the smoke blanket on Coronado Island.)


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Blutide said:


> Is cancer useful? The earth would be better off without us. Not being dark, its just the truth.


Read through this thread. Learn why - while you're free to your opinion - you're wrong.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 8, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> LOL That video has some of my points in it. Also George Carlin is pretty funny guy.
> 
> For the sake of learning something I will ask this, what other species commit self sacrifices {killing it's own species as a offering to a god(s)} and cannibalism (other then some insects)?



Since other species don't (as far as we know :v) believe in gods, that's not really a good comparison, but there are many species that will kill or abandon their own kind when it suits them. Dolphins are even suspected of killing for entertainment. 

Cannibalism... are you kidding me? Amongst carnivores and omnivores I don't there are too many animals that would  refrain from  it if it was an easy source of food. Baby sharks kill and eat each other IN THE FUCKING WOMB. Chimpanzees will murder and eat infants of their own species. Pigs eat their own young. Even some types of squirrels will fuck each other up for food if they think they're big enough to pull it off. 

The fact that humans refrain from cannibalism is actually an anomaly, because we're the only ones capable of thinking "eeeewwwwwwwww..."



Attaman said:


> Read through this thread. Learn why - while you're free to your opinion - you're wrong. :wink:



Fucking humans took my "this." 

Obviously people haven't watched enough nature documentaries, or at least ones that aren't just about "oh look how graceful and beautiful this animal is now cut to another shot before it fucking eats something."


----------



## Catilda Lily (Feb 8, 2012)

Someones comment: "Humans are the scum of the Earth and need to die." 

Well, I see you are still living.


----------



## EvilLugiaXD (Feb 8, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Obviously people haven't watched enough nature documentaries, or at least ones that aren't just about "oh look how graceful and beautiful this animal is now cut to another shot before it fucking eats something."



Mmm, I have been searching for those. Anything you recommend for us to watch? It can be hard to find those since the other half of the story has documentaries that are sort of anti-human.  

It is necessary to view both sides of the story so I can make a judgement based on all gathered information.


----------



## ryanleblanc (Feb 9, 2012)

Mr PyroCopter said:


> Yes but we are also screwing up the ozone layer a whole lot ;3 become eco friendly, buy a hybrid but don't be too smug about it!.



A gas powered car emit's roughly 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned. A hybrid is the same while running on gasoline. The advantage to the hybrid is that gasoline need not be used all the time (CO2 is not being emitted all the time) or need not be used as much (CO2 is being emitted more slowly because 1 gallon of gasoline can be stretched over a further distance). While 20 pounds a gallon may sound like a lot (and it most certainly is, as is evidenced by global warming), the earth can handle the production of CO2 to a certain degree as the plant life in both forests and oceans of the world convert the CO2 to oxygen. Yes we are overdoing it and overloading the earth with CO2 past it's ability to convert it, but the point is the earth has the ability to convert it.

Where hybrid fails is the damage it does to the earth caused by the batteries. The batteries in hybrid cars contain the same carcinogenic (cancer causing) and extremely un-evironmentally-friendly pastes as regular batteries you use in your household. Unlike carbon dioxide, which as we noted earlier can be converted by the earth, the toxins from batteries cannot be absorbed and converted by the earth and rather will cause irreversible damage to ecosystems and the like as we throw them out. Have a hybrid? Getting a new one? Well that old hybrid's battery is going to sit in a landfill and eventually leak from age, and the toxins leaking out will enter the water system as it rains and the toxins are carried off to lakes and rivers. Thus severely damaging those ecosystems. And since every living thing relies on water for life, it will eventually affect every living thing.

It doesn't stop there either. Even before the batteries in hybrid cars are disposed of they will cause damage to the environment. Factories are one of the large contributors to air pollution and CO2 emission and where do you think the batteries for hybrid cars are made? In a factory of course. Which means that the batteries used specifically to combat CO2 emissions are also causing some of those emissions.

Now I'm not saying batteries are not the answer. They are the only foreseeable solution for storing power at the moment. However, technology advances very quickly in today's society. Just look at how we've advanced in cellphone technology. In the 1990s a cellphone did pretty much one thing and that was make phone calls and maybe, just maybe, play the world's simplest game of brick-breaker, on a black and white screen no less! The 90s weren't that long ago, but today we have phones like the iPhone 4 with billions of software applications that can do anything from buy you movie tickets prior to getting to the theatre, to launching cartoon birds at pigs and castles using a slingshot. Let's also not forget the utilities that we now consider essential in phones of today, such as being able to send picture and video messages, listening to music, watching movies, and browsing the internet. All this stuff is relatively new when you look back on it. Anyway, I've completely gone off topic. My point is technology advances at blistering speeds and so I'm positive we will be able to either perfect batteries in a way such that they don't contain toxins, or some other energy storage alternative will arise in the near future. 

As it stands right now though, hybrid cars are more a brilliant marketing scheme to take advantage of the sudden surge of concern for the environment to sell more vehicles, than they are a brilliant solution to harming the environment and ozone layer.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 9, 2012)

About gas, hybrid, and electric cars, don't forget that a car getting charged at home is most likely burning coal, the coal used by the power company to supply all that electricity the car needs, and that also releases a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 9, 2012)

EvilLugiaXD said:


> LOL That video has some of my points in it. Also George Carlin is pretty funny guy.
> 
> For the sake of learning something I will ask this, what other species commit self sacrifices {killing it's own species as a offering to a god(s)} and cannibalism (other then some insects)?


Ants are known for sacrificing their number, it's kinda their thing. They form rafts and the ones on the bottom drown. They throw numbers at enemies and some always die. Same with bees. It's a species made to sacrifice itself. 
The giant pacific octopus (I think) generally dies young because they forgo food and such to care for eggs. 

But moving on to cannabalism. Have you ever kept rabbits? I used to. I had a mother that would eat her young if we had her stay too close to the males after having babies. Most rodents will do this actually, so there's one chunk of the animal kingdom. 
We're pretty sure dolphins just murder porpoises for fun. Also relevant, there's a pod of dolphins proven to drown humans, taking them to an unwater cave and raping them. It's a behavior specific to the pod. 
In lions, if a new male takes over they will kill all the cubs of the pride. In chimpanzees if an infant strays from its mother the males may kill it. 
In meerkats and other hierarchy animals, if pups are born that don't belong to the top female, they may be left to die. 

the kicker in all of this is many species will commit cannibalism for the sake of killing, in order to get rid of cubs and such. Yet with most of the tribes that practiced (and still do) it was a matter of survival, one of the only ways for them to get protein and the essential nutrients that come from meat.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 9, 2012)

The Earth Is a Harsh Mistress.

Seriously, wow.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2012)

to quote christopher hitchens: "well, what an incredibly stupid question."

i think the question has been answered quite well already but i want to add my two cents.
no animals are "useful" for the earth itself. it is an inanimate object that we all just happen to live on and that happens to have a working system that allows living things to crawl around on it.
if you ask whether humans are useful to that system then the answer is most definitely "yes"! we are hosts for many parasites for example and these parasites cant exist without us.
we also exhale CO2 and produce waste that is useful for plants and other critters. we are part of the system and we contribute to it, there is just no way around it.
the only thing that makes us different (and thats probably what you are getting at here) is our intellect. unlike most other critters we always feel the need to explore and understand things that go beyond our immidiate surroundings. thats why we make tools but are also capable to think about stuff like quantum mechanics.
and that is what makes us superior to all other species. not only are we capable to manipulate our surroundings with tools but we are also capable of thinking about WHY we do it.


----------



## Fenrari (Feb 9, 2012)

We're but part of the cycle. When the last of our kind dies, the ancients will come and cast undo on the planet and it'll start again.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Feb 9, 2012)

Spatel said:


> We are the environment. We are nature.





Fay V said:


> ...humans are part of the ecosystem too.



These. I don't like the fact that people have such an "us vs. them" mentality when talking about animals.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 9, 2012)

Why do I always confuse Misanthropy with Angst?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Feb 9, 2012)

In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon.


----------



## Blutide (Feb 9, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Read through this thread. Learn why - while you're free to your opinion - you're wrong.



Yeah, no. But your opinion is noted.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 9, 2012)

Blutide said:


> Yeah, no. But your opinion is noted.


Okay, two questions then:
1) Why would the Earth be better off without us?
2) Why does the above reason, if one does exist, not apply to other life forms on this planet? Hint: "Humans destroy the environment" means you similarly condone the mass-eradication of pretty much every living being, and "Humans don't care about the balance of nature" is about as factual as saying my cat doesn't learn the principles of Quantum Physics because it can't be assed to.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 10, 2012)

I don't see what other species has the potential to prevent impact events or preserve biodiversity after a gamma ray burst by means of bio- and eco-engineering.

The Earth would be worse off without its only sapient tool-users.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 10, 2012)

Interesting topic but...I'm going to go cook bacon and eggs that were murdered by humans! Mhmm, breakfast!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 10, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> I don't see what other species has the potential to prevent impact events or preserve biodiversity after a gamma ray burst by means of bio- and eco-engineering.
> 
> The Earth would be worse off without its only sapient tool-users.



On what basis would the earth be worse off without us?


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 10, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> On what basis would the earth be worse off without us?



On the basis that we're the only species known to be capable of inventing arbitrary standards of better/worse? :v


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 10, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> On the basis that we're the only species known to be capable of inventing arbitrary standards of better/worse? :v



The Earth would be worse off without us because it would fucking suck! It's entirely dependent on us for it to be awesome.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 10, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> On what basis would the earth be worse off without us?


*points at first sentence you quoted*

Regardless of whether or not our standards of better/worse are arbitrary, I think most animals wouldn't want to go through a mass extinction event.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 10, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> On what basis would the earth be worse off without us?


 Most probably an indirect "worse without us" (Ex: Without humans, who's going to deflect oncoming impact-events? Cats?).


----------



## Aetius (Feb 10, 2012)

HAXX said:


> Interesting topic but...I'm going to go cook bacon and eggs that were murdered by humans! Mhmm, breakfast!



Murder....such delicious murder...


----------



## Spatel (Feb 10, 2012)

Eggs aren't murdered. They're menstruations. They haven't even been fertilized!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 11, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> *points at first sentence you quoted*
> 
> Regardless of whether or not our standards of better/worse are arbitrary, I think most animals wouldn't want to go through a mass extinction event.



What does the earth care about impact events and biodiversity?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 11, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Eggs aren't murdered. They're menstruations. They haven't even been fertilized!


There's some food for thought.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 11, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> There's some food for thought.



Eggactly.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 11, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> What does the earth care about impact events and biodiversity?


The earth? Well, nothing, because earth is an unfeeling mixture of various minerals.

But the Earth, as in the planet with all its life on it, could be said to care, simply because the feeling animals among said life wouldn't want to be smashed to death by objects moving at relativist speeds or starve to death due to lack of prey, _any_ prey.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 12, 2012)

If you consider the mass of the Earth (5.98 Ã— 10[SUP]24[/SUP]kg) and the mass of all of the life that exists on the Earth (1.8 x 10[sup]15[/sup]kg), you would see that for every part of the Earth that exists as living matter, there are 3.3 billion parts that are inanimate rock.  

Put another way, if the Earth was a 5kg bowling ball, all of the life on the Earth could be represented by about 2500 bacteria... which is about 1/20,000th of the number of bacteria that exists in a single drop of tap water.  If you were to do a swab test on that bowling ball, you'd conclude that it's so devoid of life as to be practically sterile.

We can't hurt the Earth.  We can't help the Earth.  We're not a virus infecting the Earth or a cancer that can consume even a tiny fraction of the Earth.  If the entire biosphere of the Earth is so puny that one could conclude that the Earth is practically sterile, how could you conclude that humanity has any significance whatsoever to the planet?

The Earth is what it is.  For better or worse, we're just hitchhikers along for the ride.


----------



## virus (Feb 12, 2012)

Question in state : are humans useful to (the) earth at all?
A: No. In fact no life is useful to the earth at all, it's just a mass of the periodic table all crunched into a sphere. All life is a parasite taking advantage of the resources this planet has. It doesn't matter. Considering 99% of all species that ever existed are already extinct I don't think its any different.
The planet is stardust, and we ourselves are stardust. We can't exist without the galaxy. HOWEVER the galaxy can exist without us.


----------



## LuchadoreBob (Feb 12, 2012)

No animal has any necessary use to the planet much like the planet has no necessary use to the universe as a whole.

I just explained Dr. Manhattan and Nihilism all at once.


----------



## Amirrah (Feb 13, 2012)

Speak for yourself. The Earth loves me. The Earth will cry when I am gone. And the Universe will laugh.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 13, 2012)

We are about as useful to the earth as the completely harmless bacteria that live on our kin are. Not at all.

But neither are we harmful.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 13, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> There's some food for thought.



And honey is just bee vomit.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 13, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Eggs aren't murdered. They're menstruations. They haven't even been fertilized!


The eggs I eat are fertilized. The soul goes well with ketchup. :V


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Feb 13, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> The eggs I eat are fertilized. The soul goes well with ketchup. :V


Chicken abortions ahhhhhh


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 14, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Eggs aren't murdered. They're menstruations. They haven't even been fertilized!


Very true...! But we took away it's potential to be life! ;p


----------



## Tha_Pig (Feb 14, 2012)

The planet was here millions of years before us...
The planet will still be here for millions of years after the last molecule that once was part of a human being or a human-made object has being wiped away, eroded and diluted into nothingness.
The planet was lifeless and bare for millions of years before life started and the planet will be lifeless and bare again for millions of years after life fades away under a cold dying sun. 
We are mostly irrelevant.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 14, 2012)

HAXX said:


> Very true...! But we took away it's potential to be life! ;p


No, because the egg is fertilized by the rooster's sperm *before* it's laid, or not at all. Way to fail basic biology that you needn't really take any kind of biology class to figure out!


----------



## Delta Fox (Feb 14, 2012)

The earth is a giant rock that happens to be able to support life. If not humans, wouldn't another species rise up and dominate it like we do?


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 14, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> No, because the egg is fertilized by the rooster's sperm *before* it's laid, or not at all. Way to fail basic biology that you needn't really take any kind of biology class to figure out!



I'm sorry, I just don't give a fuck about the physiology of a damn rooster! Look back and you'll see that you speculated what I was thinking and then just assumed. No wonder that post sounded stupid.

And in the end, we still completely denied the reproduction process for food. Delicious food.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 14, 2012)

HAXX said:


> I'm sorry, I just don't give a fuck about the physiology of a damn rooster! Look back and you'll see that you speculated what I was thinking and then just assumed. No wonder that post sounded stupid.
> 
> And in the end, we still completely denied the reproduction process for food. Delicious food.


I *never *thought I'd see the day when someone freaked out on *me* like this. Refreshing, I think!


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 14, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I *never *thought I'd see the day when someone freaked out on *me* like this. Refreshing, I think!



So an aggressive remark against an aggressive remark is freaking out..?

Okay, that just made me smile.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 14, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> No, because the egg is fertilized by the rooster's sperm *before* it's laid, or not at all. Way to fail basic biology that you needn't really take any kind of biology class to figure out!


Hum.

For someone who makes such a big deal about your superiority over autistic people, you sure do know how to freak out over a small and basically harmless detail. You'd be surprised at how much general confusion there is over chicken reproduction. (I know this because I have chickens and people are always asking weird questions about them.) The idea that the egg is inseminated directly isn't uncommon and it's not really without precedent either; I think people get it from watching footage of fish/amphibian spawns as many of those do reproduce in precisely that fashion. You'd think the hard shell would be a clue, but eh. Most Westerners never spend an appreciable amount of time around birds and most people in general aren't going to be assed to learn about avian reproduction just for the hell of it; really it shouldn't be shocking when someone has such a misconception, nor is it a particularly telling reflection of their intelligence as a whole considering it's just plain not important to most folks.


----------



## Blutide (Feb 14, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Okay, two questions then:
> 1) Why would the Earth be better off without us?
> 2) Why does the above reason, if one does exist, not apply to other life forms on this planet? Hint: "Humans destroy the environment" means you similarly condone the mass-eradication of pretty much every living being, and "Humans don't care about the balance of nature" is about as factual as saying my cat doesn't learn the principles of Quantum Physics because it can't be assed to.



We self-destruct more violently than other races. As much good as you people are trying to find, we are just as destructive.

Oh, here is the end of my argument :

57,000,000 tons of TNT. 
http://youtu.be/LxD44HO8dNQ

We created this out of fear, hate, and the thought that this and other devices will bring peace. This bomb was made to just show what we COULD make, but what we have are smaller missiles that could be launched in a second and kill millions. STFU with all this, we are as useful as cancer.


----------



## Tha_Pig (Feb 15, 2012)

Blutide said:


> We self-destruct more violently than other races. As much good as you people are trying to find, we are just as destructive.



How do you know that? There could have been other intelligent species that populated the Earth before us and self-destructed so efficiently they left no evidence behind. 

Humans are not particularly destructive... many animals are aggressive and destructive toward their own species. We have refind destruction to the level of a fine art, but what we have in quality we lack in quantity. We are actually very inefficient at the time of killing each other, as the over-population of the planet clearly shows. 

We should try harder.


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 15, 2012)

Blutide said:


> We self-destruct more violently than other races. As much good as you people are trying to find, we are just as destructive.
> 
> Oh, here is the end of my argument :
> 
> ...



Doesn't our own sun have explosions on it that make that almost nothing in comparison?

No matter how awesome our bombs are, we are not a threat to the Earth. The sun is more of a threat to the Earth. Thank goodness Earth has us, that we can one day destroy the sun and rescue Earth from it's tyranny.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 15, 2012)

Blutide said:


> We created this out of fear, hate, and the thought that this and other devices will bring peace. This bomb was made to just show what we COULD make, but what we have are smaller missiles that* could be* launched in a second and kill millions. STFU with all this, we are as useful as cancer.



And yet here we are, safe and sound. Once shit actually hits the fan, feel free to use this argument. Until then, it's just _potential_ destruction. The thing that's actually the best at killing life is the earth itself, with things like this - impact events or other non-terrestrial happenings aside.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 15, 2012)

Wreth said:


> We are about as useful to the earth as the completely harmless bacteria that live on our kin are. Not at all.
> 
> But neither are we harmful.



I am assuming that meant bacteria arent useful??   The planet couldnt regulate without bacteria. They are basic to all forms of ecological regulatory systems and cycles. The carbon and nitrogen cycles for example.  And dont forget the little buggers that live in your stomach.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 15, 2012)

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> I am assuming that meant bacteria arent useful??   The planet couldnt regulate without bacteria. They are basic to all forms of ecological regulatory systems and cycles. The carbon and nitrogen cycles for example.  *And dont forget the little buggers that live in your stomach.*



Or those that live everywhere else:  http://www.everydayhealth.com/cold-...g-grid7|hp-desktop|dl15|sec3_lnk1&pLid=135569


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 15, 2012)

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> I am assuming that meant bacteria arent useful??   The planet couldnt regulate without bacteria. They are basic to all forms of ecological regulatory systems and cycles. The carbon and nitrogen cycles for example.  And dont forget the little buggers that live in your stomach.



The bacteria that live on our skin are mostly useless to us, and that's what what was referenced in the post.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 15, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> *The bacteria that live on our skin are mostly useless to us*, and that's what what was referenced in the post.



Not so:

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-...0090528/human-skin-alive-with-bacteria?page=2



> That contribution is not one-sided. We tend to think of bacteria as germs that cause disease -- but the new findings suggest that a healthy crop of normal bacteria prevents disease.
> 
> "For example, 1.5% of Americans have MRSA in their nose -- but they don't show any signs of infection," Segre said. "Maybe it is that the other bacteria are keeping the MRSA in check and not letting it grow and create an infection. Or maybe it is because the MRSA is changing between when it's up in someone's nose and when it causes an infection."
> 
> ...




http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104662183



> And skin is just the start. The National Institutes of Health is now embarking on a follow-up to the human genome project, called the Human Microbiome Project. Segre says we won't really understand human biology without a deeper appreciation for our fellow travelers.
> 
> "The human genome is really an amalgamation of the human cells and the bacterial cells," she says, "and it's time for us to turn attention to the other organisms that live together with our human cells."
> 
> In fact, given the enormous variety of bacteria that Segre has cataloged with this latest census, it's likely that the bacteria in total have far more genes than we do. It will be a challenge to decipher them all, but that's the goal.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 15, 2012)

Actually fuck it, I'm not starting this game again. Maybe someone else will play.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 15, 2012)

Blutide said:


> We self-destruct more violently than other races.


 If you mean numerically, ants still have a higher kill-count than us. If you mean proportionally... same thing, as well as a good deal of other animals.



Blutide said:


> As much good as you people are trying to find, we are just as destructive.


 ... As? Or are you hoping you don't need to define the "as destructive", since that'll mean you _do_ condone the mass-sterilization of most of the planet's life / have to admit that nature isn't some lovey dovey paradise?



Blutide said:


> We


 You had a part in it? Oh, or are you lumping everyone into the bomb's creation, or in other words holding Man A in Zimbabwe as responsible as Man B in the labs, which is about as fair as holding Wolf A in Montana responsible because Wolf B in Michigan mauled someone? Oh, wait, no, you're only using this to talk about why humans are bad, and going "LALALA" when the animal kingdom is brought up because you'd rather think that Humans are some horrid monster than rub two braincells together and realize "Hm, no, wait, nature's fucked up too. Shit."



Blutide said:


> created this out of fear, hate, and the thought that this and other devices will bring peace.


 Compare the number of direct wars between nuclear powers after becoming nuclear powers. Furthermore, compare how often the bomb has been used on population centers: If you're going to go the "Unf unf unf we could use it to kill, like, tons of people!", fine, but then you also have to apply this to pretty much every critter in existence since any one animal could theoretically fuck over an entire ecosystem in the right scenario.



Blutide said:


> This bomb was made to just show what we COULD make,


 And obviously would be used for nothing else, and none of the research that played a part in it could be helpful for other endeavors. Nope, just made a multi-megaton bomb to jerk off to ideas of killing large numbers of people (because as well all know, only humans kill large amounts of their own species at once).



Blutide said:


> but what we have are smaller missiles that could be launched in a second and kill millions. STFU with all this, we are as useful as cancer.


 Oh, yeah, this reminds me: You never defined how the Earth would be better off without us. You know, kind of that important point that makes your entire post irrelevant unless you address it? That makes you come off as a whinging child going "Waah, stoopid hyoomanz" (or, alternatively [and perhaps more insultingly to you], rabidly "Humanity is awesome") while complaining about how we're a terminal illness destroying the planet (again, fun fact: You need to get into Teratons to start hitting major extinction events, and Petatons-up to start fucking with the planet as opposed to the little microbes called "life" on its surface)?

And this reminds me of another thing: Show me one other species on Earth so far that, if a catastrophe befalls Earth, can either potentially save it or preserve some of the life (even if only in a DNA / Genetics / whatever format)? Can possibly, purposefully, avert any oncoming catastrophe and save millions - if not billions - of lives (human and otherwise)? And don't say we wouldn't do it: We're considering cloning back up extinct animals and plans to redirect potential "kill" meteors. So, show me where the more important / useful / healthy-for-Earth beavers have enacted plans to save the world from major catastrophe / undo ecological damage. After all, you insisted that we're a negative presence, if everything else also does bad shit but also doesn't do good shit, that can only mean they're even more a loss (and thus you'd like to see them gone too). Unless, of course, you were just whinging...


----------



## Aetius (Feb 15, 2012)

Blutide said:


> STFU with all this, we are as useful as cancer.



Angst.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 15, 2012)

Hyoomanz kil, ther4 we r useless. :V
As life forms, we have use to the planet. When humans go "bye-bye", another sentient race may pop up in it's place. Everything has a purpose, even if it is destructive.

This thread stinks of Angst. Let me get some lysol spray to freshen up the place. :V


----------



## Fay V (Feb 15, 2012)

I feel like I should feel bad, but I'm actually incredibly impressed with the bomb. Yes it's destructive and the creation mostly came down to "look what we can do" but just imagine all the technology that development would have helped. 
It's not just bombs and destruction, we adapt that technology fairly well. 

At some point we need to define what helpful is. Human beings are the only species to bring others back from the brink of extinction, yes we killed many, but so have other species. Humans are the only species that actually have a good shot at bringing back animals that were once extinct. 
Humans are the only animals that actively seek to optimize an ecosystem. Remember the yellowstone example? Do you know how many man hours go into maintaining that forest, setting up controlled fires and caring for the animals so fire, and disease do not kill off swathes of other animals. 

No other species has members of their own that spend years, notable portions of their life to study, simply to care for the sick and dying of another species. 

Humans are destructive, but so are every other species. The kicker is we are the ones which actually concern ourselves with the well being of other species. Beyond individual cases where a mother takes in a cub, beyond a level of symbiotes getting mutual gain. We spend time, energy, and resources to help those which can not return the favor, which will not be thankful, which can not even fathom the effort. 
That's pretty damn impressive and until you show me another animal which puts forth that kind of preservation effort, the claims of destruction and being hurtful mean very little.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 15, 2012)

Humans do have some good. Without humanity, there would be no lulz.


----------



## Dj_whoohoo (Feb 15, 2012)

Of course...not.

:x :/ :|


----------



## Blutide (Feb 15, 2012)

I love how you all respond, thinking this will change my mind. Environment kills us, yeah that's nature no getting around it. Humans on earth, Meh we don't matter at all and as I last posted, we will destroy ourselves and most the environment too. The bomb may have been an unfortunate example to use, but we still have chemical run off, mass-production factories and we raze the rain forest. I don't even feel like putting anymore into this, talking about the value of humans on a furry forum....meh let alone that's just how I feel about us in general but in the end I am still here, adding to the cancer.


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 16, 2012)

Blutide said:


> I love how you all respond, thinking this will change my mind. Environment kills us, yeah that's nature no getting around it. Humans on earth, Meh we don't matter at all and as I last posted, we will destroy ourselves and most the environment too. The bomb may have been an unfortunate example to use, but we still have chemical run off, mass-production factories and we raze the rain forest. I don't even feel like putting anymore into this, talking about the value of humans on a furry forum....meh let alone that's just how I feel about us in general but in the end I am still here, adding to the cancer.



People responded assuming you were going to consider their reasonably well-articulated arguments. If all you plan to do is plug your ears and go "NOPE!", then maybe you should reconsider involving yourself in a discussion at all?

 So when nature does it, it's just nature. But when we do it, it's us being horrible because we aren't natural? Your argument is really weak.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 16, 2012)

Blutide said:


> I love how you all respond, thinking this will change my mind. Environment kills us, yeah that's nature no getting around it. Humans on earth, Meh we don't matter at all and as I last posted, we will destroy ourselves and most the environment too. The bomb may have been an unfortunate example to use, but we still have chemical run off, mass-production factories and we raze the rain forest. I don't even feel like putting anymore into this, talking about the value of humans on a furry forum....meh let alone that's just how I feel about us in general but in the end I am still here, adding to the cancer.



I'll make sure to never invite you to any parties, sounds like you'd be a buzzkill.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 16, 2012)

Blutide said:


> I love how you all respond, thinking this will change my mind. Environment kills us, yeah that's nature no getting around it.


 The environment kills _everything_. It'll kill humans, cats, clams, algae, anything and everything's on the "shit to fuck up" list. If something's not on the "fuck up" list, it's most likely because they pre-emptively fucked the other things up.



Blutide said:


> Humans on earth, Meh we don't matter at all and as I last posted, we will destroy ourselves and most the environment too.


 We barely have enough to saturate-nuke a quarter of Earth's land-mass surface, let alone "most of the environment too". And we'd have to purposefully be as dickish as possible to get a 25% spread.



Blutide said:


> The bomb may have been an unfortunate example to use, but we still have chemical run off,


 You do realize such things occur naturally (albeit with natural materials), yes? It's not like Oil is something that's magically contained for infinite times infinity time until nasty hyoomanz find it, similar to other typically hostile chemicals (hell, some streams / rivers are naturally acidic enough to burn skin on contact through natural processes). Funnily enough, nature seems to get by.



Blutide said:


> mass-production factories and we raze the rain forest.


 We raze more forests than that, but unfortunately for you Humans are not the only cause of deforestation.



Blutide said:


> I don't even feel like putting anymore into this, talking about the value of humans on a furry forum....meh let alone that's just how I feel about us in general but in the end I am still here, adding to the cancer.


 This post is hilarious in hindsight. What hindsight? "People deserve second chances." Apparently, humanity as a whole isn't "people", which leads me to think what you meant was more "I / those I like deserve as many chances as I / they want".

More on this topic, however, I wonder if you'd be more or less depressed if you didn't apply a blatant double-standard between humans and animals. Less depressed because when you look at what the natural kingdom does outside of the magic of _Dances With Wolves_ / _Pocahontas_ / _Avatar_, Humanity's not as fucked up as you're trying to make it to be (in comparison to the rest of the world). More because... well, if you get off to the idea of nature being pure and innocent and ebil hyoomanz being the ones who fuck it up, having the cloth ripped from your eyes and learning "Oh, yeah, that race you hate and would love to see vanish? It's one of the good guys" tends to lead to an "Oh, shit no. No no no no no, you're lying!" moment.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 16, 2012)

Blutide said:


> I love how you all respond, thinking this will change my mind. Environment kills us, yeah that's nature no getting around it. Humans on earth, Meh we don't matter at all and as I last posted, we will destroy ourselves and most the environment too. The bomb may have been an unfortunate example to use, but we still have chemical run off, mass-production factories and we raze the rain forest. I don't even feel like putting anymore into this, talking about the value of humans on a furry forum....meh let alone that's just how I feel about us in general but in the end I am still here, adding to the cancer.



And you're all mindless yahoos and we'd all be better off if the Houyhnhnms were in charge. God I wish they didn't make me leave.

You know...I think I just realized Gulliver was a furry.

Also, in terms of natural destruction. Tar pits, Geysers, and fucking "Paint Pots" (boiling clay). Actually go visit yellowstone sometime. There's a rumor that a tourist dies once a week in the park because they think nature is special and harmless. Then they fall into a paint pot and burn alive, or get mauled by a bison, or something else equally stupid.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 16, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Also, in terms of natural destruction. Tar pits, Geysers, and fucking "Paint Pots" (boiling clay).



Don't forget floods, earthquakes, cyclones, tsunamis, avalances, blizzards, plagues, limnic eruptions, tornados, fires, volcanos and 'supervolcanos'.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 16, 2012)

Those things that fill lakes with Carbon monoxide and kill all the fish, then explodes and kills everyone around the are...
Nature isn't toxic in the least. nope.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 16, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Those things that fill lakes with Carbon monoxide and kill all the fish, then explodes and kills everyone around the are...
> Nature isn't toxic in the least. nope.




Oh and red tide, methane burps from deep under ground, random outbreaks of disease that appear as if out of thin air.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 17, 2012)

Anyone who thinks humanity can do dick all to the Earth is downright delusional.  Can we destroy up the environment?  No.  We can do some damage, to be sure... especially locally.  We can pollute the hell out of a river system.  We do that all the time.  We can kill off entire species.  We do that all the time, too.  But *destroy the environment?*  We don't have the power to do that.  We could lob every nuke we have at the polar ice caps, and we'd do some damage, but we wouldn't destroy them.  We could mine all of the world's coal and oil and burn it in the most dirty way possible, and we'd only raise the global temperatures a few degrees.  Give it a few centuries, and things will settle down again.  All of humanity could spend all of our waking moments trying to utterly destroy the world's biosphere, and we would fail.  Why?  Because the Earth's biosphere is fucking *huge* and we are *tiny* compared to it!  We could fuck with it as much as we can, and the environment would simply adjust to our dickery and life would go on.

When people think we have the power to "destroy" the environment, they're often thinking about the damage we've done to some local environments.  Yeah, we can clear-cut an entire forest.  Guess what?  Trees grow back.  Yeah, we can wipe out species after species.  In time, new species will arrive and take over the niche that the old species used to fill.  Locally, humans can (and do) great harm, but globally?  The planet's too big and we're too small for us to do much harm at all.  At best, we're like a child peeing into a lake.  We can say the water we just peed in is polluted and unusable, but our little yellow steam is simply too small to effect the entire lake much at all.

Anyone who says otherwise just needs to get over themselves.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 17, 2012)

We can cause global damage without Nukes... the issue is that it's slow (in human terms), and there's a natural limit considering a lot of what we can use to do said damage is very limited natural resources. Furthermore, bringing such up is actually a good example of human _restraint_, as anyone watching the scene for the last few decades knows there's been a major rise in green living / green policies (which is removes the argument that Humans only dick up nature without care or concern, but has to be addressed if you're trying to bring up that pollution point: You can have pollution or willful destroyers, not both).


----------

