Does mankind have a positive association to the environment ?

[clapstyx]

It would seem a resolve to a point of truth greater than "the existence of the greenhouse effect" is in order. Do we have any starters for the claim that on mass balance terms mankind and his habits are perfectly suited to the continuation of the planet as a symbioticly organised organism ?

[Govind]

Until it was Homo sapiens...yes, there was a positive assocaition..

But now that Homo sapiens sapiens are around....the association is far from positive. It is not mankind that is to be blamed....it is modern man that is the culprit.

[Boerseun]

'Course we have a positive influence.

 

Since the oceans started getting warmer and the Pacific slightly more acidic, conditions have been improved for jellyfish and algae, to the point where jellyfish population explosions and algae blooms have made many beaches dangerous for humans, as well as other animals.

 

So, we've been a positive influence on jellyfish and algae, at least.

 

Many other species have bit the dust because of us.

 

From an external point of view, mankind is simply another vector in the fluxes that the biosphere have witnessed (and survived) over the eons. The biosphere survives these changes through evolution, by weeding out those not adapted to the new environment.

 

Sure - mankind have done bad things to the planet, but only "bad" in our own point of view; we've changed the "status quo", things we were used to are now different. But from a planetary perspective, the Earth simply couldn't care less how many species die and how many make it. It's simply another in a long chain of disasters.

 

We, ourselves, are after all the result of an environmental disaster of planetary proportions that took place around 65 million years ago. And what we're currently doing is not a match for that big rock that slammed into earth.

 

So, yes - humans are bad for the biosphere, but only from a human prespective. Millions of years from now, scientists might look back at today's climatic disaster and say that in hindsight, it might be the best thing that ever happened, because of all these new species that came to the fore, etc.

 

Imagine for a second that the dinosaurs weren't wiped out by a comet, but rather by them intentionally blowing a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, knowing full well the consequences. Well, the nett result is that they died, and opened the playing field for the mammals to come to the fore. Was their actions good or bad? Obviously bad, from a saurian perspective. But definitely good, from a mammalian perspective.

 

So, before we say the humans are bad to Earth, we should first define our terms, I guess.

[Govind]

 

So, before we say the humans are bad to Earth, we should first define our terms, I guess.

 

I think the selfish, self-centered, self-involved and totally narcissistic species that Homo sapiens sapiens is, I think the terms are already defined! And its more like..."Are humans bad to Earth..such that the latter will degrade to an extent that the human species will be adversely affected and may become extinct!!!"

[Boerseun]

From an evolutionary point of view, mankind isn't "bad to earth", we're merely changing the conditions and altering the environment, benefitting species adequately suited to the new environment and filtering out those that are not.

 

We might kill ourselves off, and yes, that will suck - but only for you and me and other humans. Not bad for the rest of the animal kingdom, though.

Removing humans from the equation might result in a vast explosion of new species, akin to the Cambrian explosion, who will evolve to fill the niches vacated by our demise.

 

It is bad.

 

But only if you're human.