Do you think the world would be better without humans?

It not stupid question, I world would of been much better if we weren't destroying it!!!

*********************************************************************

Humans like they smart, but really look of what we have done to our own planet in less than 6000 years of from groups & etc, most of damage was in the last 60 years!!!

*********************************************************************

Even if stop right now, the eco-system would take thounds of years to fix again if at all!!!

*********************************************************************

I'm no doom day person this is just simpe fact. People that but stuff like SRV, RV, huge houses, and stuff like really should have special taxes to help fix the problem that they're creating to the world!!!

*********************************************************************

1) World best bet: Is for all couple in the world to have only ONE CHILD!!!! Is would stop the over population problem at least, which is one of the best problems out there!!!

2) Save the Rainforest!!! I'm not tree hugger myself (maybe inside a little), but 25% of the air for all that's right all LIFE comes from there. Countries should ban, stop or even go to war to save this!!!

*********************************************************************

Not go War for OIL!!! (the weird thing here is that G. Bush could of change everycar in USA & Canada cheaper than the costs that the war on terriosts cost so far & still had $$$ lefted over!!!)

*********************************************************************

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Rain Forest)

This article is about the rainforest in general. For more specific information, see Temperate Rainforests article or the Tropical Rainforests article.

The Daintree Rainforest in Queensland, Australia.A rainforest, or a wet forest, is a forested biome with high annual rainfall. Tropical rainforests arise due to the Intertropical Convergence Zone, but temperate rain forests also exist. In addition to prodigious rainfall, many rainforests are characterized by a high number of resident species and tremendous biodiversity of their flora and fauna.

**********************************************************************

The largest tropical rainforests exist in the Amazon basin (the Amazon Rainforest), in Nicaragua (Los Guatuzos, Bosawás and Indio-Maiz), the southern Yucatán Peninsula-El Peten-Belize contiguous area of Central America (including the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve), in much of equatorial Africa from Cameroon to the Democratic Republic of Congo, in much of southeastern Asia from Myanmar to Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, eastern Queensland, Australia and in some parts of the United States. Outside of the tropics, temperate rainforests can be found in British Columbia, southeastern Alaska, western Oregon and Washington, the western Caucasus (Ajaria region of Georgia), parts of the western Balkans, New Zealand, Tasmania, and parts of eastern Australia.

*********************************************************************

Rainforests act as major consumers of carbon dioxide and may play a large role in cooling air that passes through them. As such, many scientists feel that the rainforests are of vital importance within the global climate system.

*********************************************************************

The rainforest as a source of drugs

Tropical rain forests are called the 'world's largest pharmacy' because of the large amount of natural medicines discovered there. Nearly half of the medicines that we use come from the rainforests. For example, rain forests are responsible for containing the "basic ingredients of birth control hormones, stimulants, and tranquilizing drugs" (Banks 36). Curare (a paralyzing drug) and quinine (a malaria cure) are also found there. Scientists believe that the cures for many more diseases will be discovered there in the future. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists.

*********************************************************************

Degradation of the rainforests

This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.

Tropical and temperate rain forests have been subjected to heavy logging and agricultural clearance throughout the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforests around the world is rapidly shrinking. It is estimated that the rainforest was reduced by about 58,000 km² annually in the 1990s. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated by some that the remaining natural rainforests could disappear within 40 years (mid-21st century). Biologists have estimated that large numbers of species are being driven to extinction, possibly more than 50,000 a year, due to the removal of habitat with destruction of the rain forests. Protection and regeneration of the rainforests is a key goal of many environmental charities and organisations, including EcologyFund and the Nature Conservancy.

*********************************************************************

See also

Cloud forest

Illegal logging

Jungle

Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests

*********************************************************************

P.S. Stop being a part of the problem there is a start, right???

*********************************************************************

If you like want you have read Copy & Paste & Send to people to get the word out there so something does change, if not will be dead in the next 100- 300 years TOPS!!!!

*********************************************************************

Open your EYES PEOPLE!!!!

*********************************************************************

LUV, MOTHER T OF WPG (Canada) :) :) :)

We as humans coined the term "world". Without humans there would be no world as we have defined it. The question is akin to "if a tree fell in a forest and no one was around to hear the even would it make a sound?" Humans do not affect the world only the environment in which we live. Our world is what we create it to be. The animal kingdoms world is as they find it to be. The big ball itself controls its own destiny and we as humans have no control over the outcome. We can only specutlate and philosophically speculate as to what will be. We as humans have spread the big myth to todays children that we are destroying the world. Rubbish. We can no more destroy this planet than we could drink all the oceans water. We could destroy our environmental ability to live on this planet but so could a major vocanic eruption. We have been in global warming for 12,000 years now since the end of the last ice age. is that a bad thing when you go to the beach. We only think in terms of breif periods of time, mostly the time we have to live on this rocketship we call earth.

=.=

we make the world.

no humans, no "objective" reality.

All sign systems will end. There will be no concept.

No worldliness. Nothing. Space matter won't exist.

Not atoms or trees or oceans. Over, finito, nada.

"We as humans have spread the big myth to todays children that we are destroying the world. Rubbish. We can no more destroy this planet than we could drink all the oceans water"

I don't agree at all that from a human POV we aren't causing precipitous harm to our environment. We say the world is dying, because it is going to kill US. Bacteria and cockroaches won't care, they will live through it.

And yes, I don't find humans to be the pinnacle either, we aren't intrinsically the masters of the universe. If we designed faster, smarter, more efficient thinking machines that felt more joy and could perceive far beyond our limitations... I wouldn't fight against them in the least; I'd probably help them kill off all the idiots, if anything.

But what of humans? Would we be better without the world?

the world and the animals would be better of for sure

but there are many ways to live in harmony with Nature as a pardner or an associate ,rather than an enemy..

this is what Permaculture is all about

Permaculture means permanent agriculture

a concept put forward by Bill Mollisson in the 60`s

which is a complete hand book for environmental design.

for those who seek an ambiotic relationship with our planet

With practical solutions for energy systems ,infratructure ,housing,

animal shelter ,water systems and sustainable agricultural practises.

With the world and it`s history as it`s source

From the chinampas of Mexico to the teraced gardens of the Andes.

From the dessert whadis to the steppes of Russia.

Covering all climatic conditions temporal, dessert, humid and dry tropics.

with chapters on soil ,Water harvesting and land design,

Earth working ,Spirals in nature,Trees and water ,utilising energy flows,

Strategy for an alternative nation

some other writers that are on the internet are

david Holmgren

Larry Santoyo

Kirk Hanson

Masanobu Fukuaka has written ,

One-Straw Revolution

The Road Back to Nature

The Natural Way of Farming

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic14/fukuok...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/masanobu_fu...

Simon Henderson

and Bill Molisson.

a representitive of the concept in USA is

Dan Hemenway at YankeePerm@aol.com

barkingfrogspc@aol.com

http://barkingfrogspc.tripod.com/frames.htm

http://csf.colorado.edu/perma/ypc_catalog.htm

You'd have to define what qualifies as "better". If not for humans, the world may not be filled with cars, houses, farms, cities, and nuclear missle silos, but rather may be nothing but one expanse of wilderness. If this is "better," then yes.

Personally, I believe classifications such as "better" or "worse" are nothing but subjective value statements which all depend on who is evaluating the difference. A world without humans may be "better" for a polar bear since it may have an easier time finding food, raising young, and generally finding a home since its natural habitat wouldn't be quickly depleting due to an unexpected rise in global temperatures. On the other hand, a world without humans would not be "better" for me, since I would not exist, and I consider my existence to be an important interest for me.

Well what is "better"? If you think that, before humans came around, the world was in a state of perfect balance, of natural harmony and we disrupted it and have set the world on course toward its own destruction, then yes.

But I tend to doubt that assesment of the pre-human world. Nothing about nature is harmonious. Nature is chaos. Humans have the potential to add to that chaos or to bring order to it. Without us, the world would be better to the degree that we have increased chaos, but it would be worse to the degree that we have brought order.

Intresting. No I think the world would be a better place without alot of the habits of human beings,but belive that the world holds specific purpose for our habitation.

I don't think so. Would you rather to have apes to rule the world over humans? I don't think so. The world will be better with humans forever!

Would you have had the opportunity to ask the questions if there were no humans?

So no. It would not better without humans because there would be no life, and you actually with the question denying your existence. And mine.

So answer is no.

Not for humans it wouldn't. What are you?

The person immediately above probably thinks of him/herself as being right on the cutting edge of thought - a fashionable postmodernist. I point out to that person that the arrogance, the anthropocentrism, of his/her answer is ancient - it's the arrogance that thinking people have been throwing off for centuries. Get real. We make our interpretations of the world - we don't make the world.