What Would Happen If Humans Disappeared?

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 year, 2 months ago to Video
41 comments | Share | Flag

Yep...this comes from the left, the environ(mental)ist and the "animals were here first crowd. (sometimes I wonder if they realize that They Too, would not exist).

But...ask yourself, your rationally interested self...what value would the earth serve without mankind? What possible purpose would it serve? Sure, the animals would have a place to live...but so what?
For that matter, what value would existence have without an awareness of it?

[Note: for those that don't know or never thought about it; Animals are, Yes, aware of their environment, but not aware of their own awareness...as such was the case for ancient man as well. But, we did have a strange and powerful curiosity about it all.]
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/Wy7Q6wazD_E


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by andrewph 1 year, 2 months ago
    To be frankly honest, the earth doesn't need us, as we need it, but more to your point, the utter hypocrisy of the video is staggering. We utilize the resource available to us just as the whales, wolves, apes, et al. However, we have become self aware unlike the Dino's, thw last major dominate life form. We haven't even lived as a species as long, so why are this environmental wackos accuse the human race as the destroyer of the earth?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 2 months ago
      They have had all Conscious Humans scratching our heads over that one....

      One might argue that without humans, nature might just destroy itself till there is only one species and that one species would die out too!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mgarbizo1 1 year, 2 months ago
    Short answer, the earth would exist as it had when humans did not inhabit the earth, just like it exists with us inhabiting the earth as we currently do...I just watched the video, funny, that these people came to my conclusion as well, but then they still add, take care of our planet as if it mattered since the earth is (according to them) robust enough to handle all the garbage and nuclear waste we can throw at it. I think they just proved why environmentalism is wrong when it sacrifices human survival over planetary/animal survival, no?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 2 months ago
    Well, from what I understand, there is a theory among scientists the the dinosaurs were wiped out
    millions of years ago because of an asteroid hitting
    the earth. (It could very well have been catastrophic
    for other animals on the earth; perhaps oceans
    boiling, etc.) But if that came along now, perhaps the humans could send out a nuclear
    bomb to bust it up, and thus avert the disaster.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 1 year, 2 months ago
    "And God looked on all he created and saw that it was good!" He gave man dominion over that creation as a husbandman to care, nourish, and protect what had been created. Humans have not done a good job of that but the planet survived in spite of us. Consider this, without humans who would know there is a planet Earth or even a solar system. Science fiction, like the movies of the 50's, 'Last Man on Earth' etc.; is pure conjecture. Assumptions were made in the video, except one! If the human lifeform disappeared why would the other lifeforms continue? Our existence is based on a carbon cycle, reliant on the other.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 year, 2 months ago
    without humans, the earth would go on as nature would have it. Things would equalize out and nature would balance things, probably better than we do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 2 months ago
      It was never our purpose or job to balance things, I think, Term, but perhaps to preserve what was valuable to us and nature as we saw it...yes, there are and were problems with that, in 20/20 hind sight but too, is Our nature to act before we have complete knowledge and understanding of something. We've never been a patient lot, have we.

      Perhaps mankind as a whole has had a tendency to act before our mental pistons reached dead top center.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 year, 2 months ago
        Maybe what we did is what the animals did- just take what was there for whatever we wanted. Take the freebies and go for it. When there are no more freebies, then we have to think about what to do
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 year, 2 months ago
          I like that analogy...and we, conscious or not, were the only ones that could do that. Perhaps we might add that; to language, written and spoken that forced conscious awareness upon us.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 year, 2 months ago
    A few years ago there was a short series of hour long shows on the same subject. I can't remember if what I saw was on National Geographic, Discovery or what.
    Here is a condensed very similar to your link something~
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9bA...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Riftsrunner 1 year, 2 months ago
      It was a show called "Aftermath:Population Zero" or "Aftermath:The World After Humans". There was a similar show on History Channel called "Life after People" which became a series that explored specific aspects of changes that would happen. Both shows were based on a novel by Alan Weisman called "The World Without Us". As the clip explains, much of what we have created would survive the test of time by much more than a few millenia. Eventually, the only remnant of humans will not be found on Earth, but on the moon since the lunar enviroment isn't as dynamic. I always contemplate that with only fossils as evidence that maybe dinosaurs may have been more intelligent than we gave them credit for, but any evidence for this viewpoint would have been wiped away. (Their small braincases also argues against it, but it is fun to speculate)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 year, 2 months ago
        Thanks for the memory jolt. It was "Life After People" that I saw. That was back when I was a bigger fan of The History Channel than I am now.
        Now there are some regular shows that I don't much care for. Now I channel surf it prospecting for a gem so to speak that I sometimes find.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gharkness 1 year, 2 months ago
    The bigger question is why does the earth (or any planet) have to "serve" value? Is this a requirement to justify its existence?

    And..."value" to whom/what?

    What about planets that are uninhabited....do they serve a value? Do they have a purpose? Do they need either one? Would they be less "valuable" if we weren't here to observe them in the night sky? What about the ones we can't see?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 2 months ago
      The point is...it just wouldn't matter without some awareness of it...like who cares if a tree falls in the forest and makes a noise or not if no one is around to hear it.

      As to value...every cell in your body has value...so too, everything in existence must have some value otherwise, there would be not point to it.
      However, we could argue the opposite in reference to some creatures in our government...laughing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gharkness 1 year, 2 months ago
        Value, as I asked, to WHOM and what? You didn't answer that. If the question has to be asked, it's irrelevant.

        Value is a subjective determination: completely valid to you, but perhaps not so much to someone else.

        As I implied but didn't state directly above, there does not HAVE to be "a point," and if there is "a point," that point could be different to varying individuals (or any other entity that might be making that judgment). (In this case, the "point" I am referring to is not your "point" that you felt necessary to explain (it wasn't) but this, which I am quoting from your explanation. " otherwise, there would be not point to it.")

        And if there's no point to it (as there may not be), then what?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mgarbizo1 1 year, 2 months ago
          gharness, you said: Value is a subjective determination: completely valid to you, but perhaps not so much to someone else. And I got from your statement that you don't believe there has to be a value to all things in this world. I agree with OUC, everything has value, but that value is subjective to each person. You seem to think that just because value is subjective that there are some things that have zero value. Please name something physical and observable in reality that you know has no value to you, so we can pick this question apart to its roots.
          I wanted to add one more thing to tie it all together for you. Everything that has a certain value has a point to it (a purpose if you will, and that purpose is as it relates to the valuer), but the question you have to really search for is without that value or purpose assigned, does the object become devalued and cease existing? My answer, it doesn't because its still in reality regardless if someone is there to observe it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by gharkness 1 year, 2 months ago
            Oh hell no. I am not going to go to any lengths whatever for you to pick this question apart to its roots.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 year, 2 months ago
              You crack me up!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by gharkness 1 year, 2 months ago
                I'll take that as a compliment, thanks.

                There is much published on the topic of value. Coming from what I would consider a good place, take a look at these:

                http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/val...

                All of her comments discuss value from the standpoint of the valuer, which would presumably in the case of Miss Rand, mean a live human being.

                If you take away the human, you take away the value, which does NOT imply that you take away the existence. Mgarbizo1 conflated the two concepts (value and existence) in this phrase: does the object become devalued and cease existing?

                Even if something is of value to no one, it doesn't necessarily cease existing. And not everything that exists has value. If you doubt that, you aren't thinking very hard, and no, I won't do it for you.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mgarbizo1 1 year, 2 months ago
                  Thank you for the link as well, its prompting me to ask you another question that I just came across while reading the last paragraph of the link:
                  "To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals."

                  Suppose this immortal indestructible robot is conscious and has the ability to think. Wouldn't it then be able to assess a value to things irregardless of whether or not anything is needed to sustain its life force?
                  Regardless, if it is "life" that gives meaning to "value" and we agree that this immortal robot has life, then by definition, it can value things, correct?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by gharkness 1 year, 2 months ago
                    Well, I would not think it could value things....because value implies that the "valued" object would have some ability to affect my life (or the life of my loved ones) in some way ("me" and "my" being the robot).

                    With the constraints mentioned, I can't see that it would be able to assign value other than arbitrarily, in which case any outcome would be perfectly fine, including the destruction of the "valued" item. With literally nothing contingent on any outcome, how would I, as the robot be able, to value the thing? The "thing" could do nothing for or against me (or mine); therefore it would have no value.

                    Now the entire argument of the previous two paragraphs is contingent on accepting that the definition of "life" is considered to be "conscious and has the ability to think." And I'm not sure I do accept that definition, necessarily. As we move forward with more and more AI, it's arguable that this definition of "life" could be at risk :-) Enter the Singularity...

                    Also, consider that some entities that are alive are not necessarily conscious nor have the ability to think. For example: Viruses. In fact, there's an argument in scientific circles as to whether they are, in fact alive, or not (whether or not they are alive, though, they certainly do act). Bacteria also, though I do think that bacteria are universally considered to be alive.

                    Another consideration of "value" that we haven't touched upon at all is relative value. Something could have value, but one would then have to decide if the value was higher or lower than some "other" thing that also had value.

                    And with that, I go screaming into the night.... ;-)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  1 year, 2 months ago
                  Yes, and thanks for the link, and yes again...value is subjective but to my point, and perhaps I've not done a good job of getting it across, is without subjectivity, without awareness, it really doesn't matter anymore...that is the "point" I think when you come right down to it....
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by gharkness 1 year, 2 months ago
                    Well, I would agree with that. When consciousness is gone, so is value. To that person. When there are no people left, then there won't be any value, but getting to that point goes back to my original comment which is...value to whom?

                    I think you and I can agree that the value we are talking about is value to people; however, that is far from a universal sentiment. My intent was not to disagree with you but to get you to become more specific.

                    Specificity is crucial when discussing concepts. :-)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 year, 2 months ago
          Subjectivity itself designates awareness, does it not? Yes, I am arguing a philosophical point but as I have stated and written before, all things have at least some value; good, bad and ugly, if only to realize that which is not.

          The hole point, I think, IS objectively subjective?...without awareness, there is no value, no purpose, no objectivity nor subjectivity; nothing good bad or ugly, no rights or wrongs, day or night and it matters not if anything exists.

          It's kind of a circular argument but this is the corner the leftest have gotten themselves into...Yes/No?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo