The debate "The world would be better off if humans had never existed." was started by
Notanidiot on
November 3, 2017, 12:15 pm.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument, lucais_fitz posted 1 argument, mtbtheboss posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Yanksxx21, YoungVoicesof_Tomorrow, Tabu, AntiTHEIST, bernie2020, lucais_fitz, goodlo, FuckTheSnowflakes, TJefferson, Argument_fightme, mtbtheboss and 28 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, SirIntegra, M_Rose, jordkorm_19, seefus, InfinityMachine and 12 visitors disagree.
Better off for who? For biodiversity? Yeah. For the earth itself? It wouldn't give a shit. We're probably not going to affect the lifespan of the earth in any meaningful way.
not for humans lol
i never heard of a water crisis outside of local areas predisposed to drought. how was earth's life simpler before people? do you think the earth has a preference?
one of our main problems is the water crisis. this crisis is connected to global warming. global warming is in part due to pollution. pollution comes from industrial production we developed as a species to make our pasty lives easier. if we never were a part of Earth's cycle life could be simple again and go as it pleased.
and the ultimate better is never gonna come because of China
then again, in what sense "better"?
a species that can think and ask, that may make mistakes, but will hopefully also work to fix them.
maybe it is for the ultimate better
we completely decimated the biodiversity and show no signs of slowing down.