Admittedly, this question came out of a pretty grim mood…
“The Matrix” is far from being a favorite movie of mine, but there was one scene in which one of the aliens points out that, besides humans, there is only one other type of creature on Earth that will populate it’s environment to the point that the environment can no longer sustain the population - we call them viruses.
Indeed, it would appear that we have big, big problems as a result of our exploitation of the global environment. Won’t get into those details here, but I was wondering if anyone can point out any way, or ways, in which the existence of the human animal has been of benefit to this planet? Have we been of anything but detriment?
Granted, I suppose you could question whether many species are of any “benefit” to Earth. I’m wondering about us, presumably the species most capable of making conscious decisions to improve the circumstances in which we live, or at least not do irrevocable damage.
I ain’t no tree hugger, but I’m not looking for joke answers, either.
We are of alot of benefit to each other as a species. There are more overweight people on earth now than there are starving people, the first time that has ever happened in human history. The antibiotics we create have probably saved over a billion human lives, and probably billions of lives of pets and animals too. When you add up all the agricultural, cultural and medical advances we’ve made to improve each others lives it adds up.
Veternarians are an example of humans having a good influence on the world around them that doesn’t affect humans directly. If not for vets and their medicine animals would die.
This is more of a great debate thing though.
Whose benefit are we talking about here. Other humans, animals, the earth in general or what. If the earth in general (by that I mean nature) then we are more of a detriment.
This is probably correct, but in the long term any environmental damage we do short of a full scale nuclear war will be nothing more than a blip. The Earth’s climate has undergone many huge changes during it’s history, and will do so again in the future regardless of human activity. We are causing thousands of species to go extinct because we can change their environment faster than they can adapt. This is particularly true on isolated island eco-systems. However, given millions of years to play with, life will evolve to fill any biological niches we might have emptied.
Over a timescale of thousands of years we can indeed do a vast amount of damage. A climatic “blip” could well be devastating, especially for us. However, on a timescale of millions of years I doubt we’ll have much effect.
I think that just about any species will do this if the various natural limits on their populations (predetors, disease, etc.) are removed. Heck, locusts do it regularily every few years.
As to what benefit we’ve been, we’re the best thing that ever happened to cows, dogs, agricultural plants, etc. as we’ve spread them across the globe in far greater numbers then would’ve been the case naturally.
Okay, but is this a good thing? Might all these species have been better off without the human influence? Is it good to bloat their populations to our own ends?
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard this statement, and I’m curious to hear a cite for it. I’m guessing that it may be true in the US, but worldwide I kind of doubt it.
This whole question is not unanswerable in a factual manner in the terms in which you have framed it. “Good” and “benefit” are a human value judgements. You need to frame the question in a much more objective manner before it can be answered. The “benefit of the planet” is a meaningless concept by itself.
You might say that anything that helps a species to survive and persist is good for it. Therefore, humans have been decidedly beneficial to themselves, their domestic plants and animals, and their commensals such as rats and House Sparrows. They have been detrimental to many other species. Overall, if you consider high biodiversity a “good” thing, then humans have had a detrimental effect.
On the other hand, one might define a high biotic productivity to be a “good” thing, regardless of the species composition that creates that productivity. It is possible that by converting large areas of natural vegetation to highly productive agricultural systems, and by raising the Earth’s average temperature, humans have been enhancing global productivity. (I am not certain that this is the case, but it is a possibility).
You need to define what you consider to be “good” before this question can be answered.
Define better off. For that matter, relative to the OP, define benefit, to whom or what, and from whose perspective. To get right down to it, how would things have been “better” if humans never existed? And given that humans are almost certainly the only entities that even think about this, what difference would it make?
You have posed a gigantic philosophical question that depends entirely upon any given individual’s personal viewpoint. I don’t see how any meaningful answer is possible.
Was the alien stoned out his skull on galactic ditchweed, or had he never seen the ‘rabbits and foxes’ ecology simulation? Species grow exponentially, until something stops them.
Globally there are around 800 million people that go hungry because food is not equally distributed.
That overweight thing doesn’t include kids, only adults. When you include people under 18 it is probably closer to 1.3 billion or so.
There are over 300 million obese adults, according to the World Health Organization and 1.1 billion overweight people worldwide. (I assume this means 1.4 total, not 1.1 total)
Did you mean that the question is unanswerable, at least as I have defined it? It may be unanswerable by any definition, at least so far as humans are capable of fully understanding and implementing such terms as “good” and “benefit.” We may not have been here long enough to fully understand how we must live in order to make our life as healthy as possible.
Agreed, I need to define “good.” I define this as behaving in a manner that at the very least maintains the optimal conditions for our survival, without degrading our environment, or doing so as minimally as possible. All things have a lifespan, and by that I mean all things, from various species, to the Earth itself, to the universe as we know it. It’s all going to end at some point. How do we make our own time here as pleasant as possible?
If you define your terms, one can at least attempt to answer the question in those terms, even if we do not know if that answer is “correct” in the long term.
The “optimal conditions for our survival” may not be congruent with not degrading the environment for other organisms. Much “environmental degradation,” such as conversion of natural environments to agriculture, has made those environments more suitable for human beings.
Personally, I am a strong environmentalist, and there are many good arguments that can be made that conservation of biodiversity, and of natural environments, has economic, scientific, and esthetic value to humans. However, I don’t think that the various questions you are asking can really be answered in GQ, at least the way you have been framing them. GD would probably be a better venue.
It may be what you meant to say, but your post has “This whole question is not unanswerable in a factual manner in the terms in which you have framed it.” Bolding mine.
I think the only benefit humans have given to the Earth has been to make its status among planets unique: the only planet which contains sentient life. Other than that, I think we’ve only been a detriment (even if it’s only a blip on the cosmic scale).