Is the extinction of mankind a bad thing?

[chazus]

On the flip side...

We could be Earth's life database only safety net.

If humans died off entirely, sure earth would thrive... But eventually something catastrophic will happen. Maybe not for a million years, maybe much sooner (like an asteroid). Humans, right now, are the only safe bet of getting biological information off the planet and elsewhere. Unless another species gets to our level of technology in however many million years, this might be the only shot for the species here to survive the planet itself.

[Arrowset]

it'd be a good thing for us and everything else.
no more pain and badness.

Have you ever seen video of a predator (cat, hyena, etc) toying with his prey while killing it? It's pretty clear that it enjoys the victim's suffering. If that's not evil then what is?

So if humans are gone, there will still be evil, but only in a less intelligent form.

[derpkitteh]

Have you ever seen video of a predator (cat, hyena, etc) toying with his prey while killing it? It's pretty clear that it enjoys the victim's suffering. If that's not evil then what is?

So if humans are gone, there will still be evil, but only in a less intelligent form.

animals don't experience the world on a level that can appreciate this though. we do.

i only care that we don't have to experience it anymore. nature can handle itself.

[Pentai]

What I do believe is bad is that the generation before this masa extinction will suffer and have to en dure harsh lifestyles due to the choices we make today. I find myself pondering about this often and believe that what I can do to help this is just not have children. If at some point I want to start a family I'll probably adopt.

We are turning the earth into a toxic soup, it's likely that the extinction event will impact everything but the hardiest bacteria and once the actual crash happens all will be over pretty fast. Like... a day or two fast, we get to wake up every morning because everything else respires for us and thus one fucked-up daily cycle is all it takes. So it's likely that there won't be new generations, if that's any condolence.

[Poe]

Other than an asteroid, Yellowstone/other Supervolcano or a MASSIVE full-scale extinction-driven nuclear war, what is really a plausible way to wipe out a large portion of the world population ? By plausible I mean things that humans are obviously capable of doing today (nuclear weapons) OR have happened at some point in the Earth's History (near-extinction sized astroids/ super volcanoes).

Obviously things like disease could play a factor although I don't think a disease could wipe out even 25% of the world population in this day and age. The Spanish Flu happened 100 years ago and it only managed to kill 3-6%. Won't include the black plague due to it happening in a time with very little knowledge on disease compared to today.

[Shadowferal]

On a related note; Earth's oceans could rise over 6 feet by 2100 as polar ice melts, swamping coastal cities such as NYC

Low-lying coastal cities are most vulnerable to rising seas, Bamber said. This includes cities in Florida and Louisiana, along with California cities such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area of San Francisco.

Worldwide, “such a rise in global sea level could result in a land loss of almost 700,000 square miles," he said. That's equivalent to an area over three times as large as the state of California.

Other big global cities partially lost to the sea include London and Rio de Janiero.

Such a rise in water levels would also swamp "critical regions of food production, and potential displacement of up to 187 million people," which is about 2.5% of the Earth's population.

"A sea-level rise of this magnitude would clearly have profound consequences for humanity," Bamber said.

--------------

The more urgent things get, the less the political will to do anything about it...

[Littleraven]

For humanity yes but for the actual planet no. That said we are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things anyway I doubt it would make much difference. It would probably "save" the planet Earth but it's not like Earth is going to be around forever anyway.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

don't think the universe really cares who and what goes.

probably doesn't. one can only hope, at least.

[DevilTrigger1989]

Referring the cases of wildlife no. increased yearly Chernobyl, no.

[PC2]

For humanity yes but for the actual planet no. That said we are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things anyway I doubt it would make much difference. It would probably "save" the planet Earth but it's not like Earth is going to be around forever anyway.

Nonsense. Only humans have explanatory knowledge which means me we can explain and then master what happens on Earth and why. Our potential far outceecds any porochial limitation set by our traditions.

[Sondrelk]

The extinction of humankind is neither a good nor bad thing, over a span of time humans can barely comprehend, humans will eventually be but a flickering ember against the vastness of space.

That being said, on a shorter, more relatable timeframe. The extinction of humans would lead to a whole bunch of effects on the planet, first a few negative ones, followed by an eventual reclamation after which nature would continue taking its course.

To say that the extinction of humans would be a good or bad thing is honestly a kind of naive way of thinking, implying that the planet is wholly defined by us and our accomplishments, over time even our greatest achievements would crumble, and a different species would rise to prominence, eventually figuring out how to create wondrous machines their ancestors could scarcely consider, like a box that allows instant messaging over distances most would not even realize was possible. And on this box, some young squidman would sit and wonder if his entry level philosophy was right and his existence is meaningless, and some other squidperson would notice his message and assure him that yes, life is meaningless, but that doesnt mean you cannot make something out of it.

- - - Updated - - -

It struck me that i may have gone off on a bit of a tangent there

[steristumpie]

I watched a documentary years ago, where a bunch of the world’s best evolutionary scientists argued their different opinions on what’s next for mankind.

They all agreed on only one point: Humans will not be around to see the next major evolutionary change.

Apparently we’re too self destructive with many things such diet and poor habits, too susceptible to disease, we build and maintain environments not conducive to long term survival, we nuke our foods (growth hormones, preservatives, simple microwaving) and are spending billions ever year on killing each other.

It’s probably a good thing since we are literally a parasitic infestation on this planet. We take and contribute nothing positive back in return.

[Sondrelk]

I watched a documentary years ago, where a bunch of the world’s best evolutionary scientists argued their different opinions on what’s next for mankind.

They all agreed on only one point: Humans will not be around to see the next major evolutionary change.

Apparently we’re too self destructive with many things such diet and poor habits, too susceptible to disease, we build and maintain environments not conducive to long term survival, we nuke our foods (growth hormones, preservatives, simple microwaving) and are spending billions ever year on killing each other.

It’s probably a good thing since we are literally a parasitic infestation on this planet. We take and contribute nothing positive back in return.

Careful you don't cut yourself on that edge.

[steristumpie]

Careful you don't cut yourself on that edge.

Sorry my post hurt your feelings.
I included a link here that might make you feel better.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident...before-you-die

[Sondrelk]

Sorry my post hurt your feelings.
I included a link here that might make you feel better.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident...before-you-die

Hey now, i am not the one talking about how humans are a parasite on the planet. I feel you might have forgotten what you just said if you think I am the cynical one.

[Khelek]

Yes, it would be a terrible thing and if you think differently your Darwin Award will be waiting for you when you make the "good" decision.

[Amerissis]

Is the extinction of mankind a bad thing?

What a silly question. It completely depends on your point of view and your definition of bad. For nature, earth, the solar system, the universe it wouldn't make a difference. Not good, not bad. Just something that happens, just like all the things before and all the things after.

For us as humans it would suck, especially for the people who are alive when the population starts dwindling and mankind has to transition into survival mode. Imagine actually being the last person alive. Or the last group, if you will. Just a dozen people, mostly family probably, knowing you're never going to find a mate, have children, etc., still trying to survive, but knowing it's pointless in the end.

On a side note, I don't think we'll ever go extinct until the planet becomes truly inhabitable (due to solar radiation or something, not due to polar caps melting or deforestation or overpopulation, etc., because that would still leave places that would stay habitable). There will always be groups of people who will survive whatever disaster happens and those will repopulate the earth again and again. It'll be a huge technological setback, much will be lost, but we will survive as a species and rebuild.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it would be a terrible thing

But why? Explain your point of view, don't just make a statement and condemn everyone who disagrees without any form of explanation.

[d00mGuArD]

On a related note; Earth's oceans could rise over 6 feet by 2100 as polar ice melts, swamping coastal cities such as NYC

Low-lying coastal cities are most vulnerable to rising seas, Bamber said. This includes cities in Florida and Louisiana, along with California cities such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area of San Francisco.

Worldwide, “such a rise in global sea level could result in a land loss of almost 700,000 square miles," he said. That's equivalent to an area over three times as large as the state of California.

Other big global cities partially lost to the sea include London and Rio de Janiero.

Such a rise in water levels would also swamp "critical regions of food production, and potential displacement of up to 187 million people," which is about 2.5% of the Earth's population.

"A sea-level rise of this magnitude would clearly have profound consequences for humanity," Bamber said.

--------------

The more urgent things get, the less the political will to do anything about it...

Oh noes! 2.5% of the population displaced? Some people from florida and california will have to move to other states? People from London will have to move to other cities? 2100 sounds like a very bad year.

This is a worst case scenario, said those 22 scientists. To quote them "a high-end estimate"

To be honest, I was expecting much much worse. Something like "all living humans will be endangered by 2100".
This "high-end estimate" sounds like easy-mode Look For Raid difficulty catastrophe, not really something our generation will worry about.

[Merryck]

Only because the immense potential our species holds for greatness would be snuffed out. Humans could be the shepard for all species, to cultivate life on a great scale. Instead we are driven by greed and destroy our surroundings and the natural world. Ultimately, the universe is indifferent. But to hell with the nihilists who claim life has no meaning or purpose. It is our meaning and purpose, we are meant to experience it. That's all that matters, I think. Do whatever you want.

[Khelek]

But why? Explain your point of view, don't just make a statement and condemn everyone who disagrees without any form of explanation.

I don't need to explain, because if you believe the former and haven't killed yourself you are a hypocrite and if you do kill yourself my beliefs win the evolutionary battle.

Still, I will say this. If you believe that humans are destroying the planet, I would like to refer you to Azolla, the plant that consumed so much carbon dioxide it put the planet into an ice age, while killing countless other species with which it competed. The idea that organism find some magical balance with nature is absurd. Predators over predate then starve when their prey is gone. Rabbits will reproduce until they destroy their ecosystem. The Royale island experiment is a good example of how nature really works.

Humans have the same right to existence as any organism and are the only one that actively cares about trying to maintain their environment, so if you feel nature and other species are important you may want humans around. Hell, many species currently threatened with extinction have had their genomes sequenced and could be brought back at a later date if they do succumb to extinction human caused or otherwise.