This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I always enjoy it when people say that the world would be better without us, as if balance is necessarily perfect in nature. I know that this is a concept that has been bashed into my brain repeatedly since starting 1st grade. I am fairly confident that Nature wouldn't really notice if we disappeared. Species would still cease to exist (we would have been one), plants would continue to grow, but there would be no controlling the "invasive" species.
Of course anyone fantasizing about the disappearance of the human race really out to reconsider his viewpoint. It is truly immoral.
brad t said:
"Of course anyone fantasizing about the disappearance of the human race really out to reconsider his viewpoint. It is truly immoral."
Exactly, hence the shame I mention since this article has a slant to it in the early paragraphs that appears to rejoice in the idea that the human race will one day disappear. Ironically such an event would then make the article even more irrelevant than is might be now.
It is one thing to put forward a hypothesis that mankind, or some similar series of developments to what we understand of ourselves and the development of things in general on the planet we inhabit, could have come and gone a number of times already without us being able to readily detect such events today but another matter completely to seemingly relish the thought that the demise of the human species would save the planet and almost everything else on it or in it.
Maybe we do indeed have amongst us creatures who have arrived from elsewhere only to find their safe harbour from the perils of their own galaxy is less elysian than they hoped. It would explain a lot of what is going on. There - another hypothesis to investigate.
I think the implication in the piece that the planet, absent humanity, would return to a nice steady stable state eventually is particularly interesting. Does that suggest that our current scientific knowledge is so poor that it cannot be trusted in any way at all? Perhaps all of the temperature changes, species development and climate variation theories, very hot periods and ice ages included, are no more than artefacts of poor science data.
Of course if these people really want to go and self destruct that's fine by me. DDT gets a sideswipe in there somewhere - maybe they could protect the world as they leave by attempting to overdose with it ...
So whcih speciaes would inherit the planet? (Assuming that we aver claimed it successfully from the ant and cockroaches in the first place). And can we teach them to read and write quickly enough to continue our work ...?
Oh,er ..., well, maybe not ALL of our work ....
It is perhaps selfish of me to say, but if I or my descendents aren't alive, I don't give a blankety blank if the world survives.
That is just another way of saying that survival is always the first order of business. We may not even take a nanosecond to consider it when making a decision since it is often obvious that survival is not affected, but it should never be subjugated in rank. It is the first rung on maslow's ladder (pyramid). It is the first step on any decision matrix.
I am a firm believer in restating the obvious. Too many times I have overlooked the obvious (cords not plugged in, car out of gas, battery dead) and paid extra for it.