Humans in general from a scientific perspective are the only beings that do not maintain balance on planet earth, all other forms of life play their "part", but humans disrupt the "balance". For example, we are the only species on the planet that does not have something above us in the food chain or something that could balance our population out.

So what do you think, do you think human life is a necessity to the balance on earth?

Do you think we humans could balance out ourselves so that we did less damage to the ecosystem and atmosphere?

Why or Why not?

Shinsengumi89

PS. Don't know why the title came out the way it did, it was supposed to be

What is humanity's place in the world?

From my personal point of view, I think the world would actually be better off without humans. I still put not sure because I'm not an animal and I can't put more into it.

Humans pretty much screw up a lot of things because of various things. 1. We abuse science. 2. We cause wars that not only harm each other, but the environment too. 3. We are freaking retards sometimes and we destroy a lot of things out of greed.

Humans are greedy, violent and wasteful by nature. All they do is destory and take without giving anything back to the environment. People won't change anytime soon, because there's no profit in it and by the time they do, it will probably be too late.

Mankind is the tumor of the world... it would DEFINITELY be better off without us.

Quote: we are the only species on the planet that does not have something above us in the food chain or something that could balance our population out.

I kinda disagree with you in this, it is true that our population isnt balanced out as much as with other species and the weakest are given more opportunities to live, but we are creating our own way of balancing population with bio-weapons, war, terrorist attacks, man-created viruses and... well pretty much everything we create... Altho it IS true that we are overpopulating the world.

You have to ask yourself, are semi-intelligent beings that have the potential of creating truly intelligent "life" more or less important than this planet. I don't think so. Our planet will end and so will the life currently on it. We're lucky to have a species as empathetic and rational as we are (though we could obviously do a lot better) and so I consider our existence to be of utmost importance.

Si los humanos no existiesemos el mundo no existiria, así que el undo esta mucho mejor con nosotros pululando por ahi

In a sense i agree with you haohmaru77, my only disagreement with the thought that we balance our selves out is that through that process we kill other animals, and with our population of the planet we have upset the ecosystem, created endangered species, even had some near extinction.

I agree with you alexjohnc3 that our survival is important, but if it comes at the price of ruining a planet and the other species around us then I'm not so sure.

But for me what it comes down too is that humans can balance themselves out too an extent and can coexist to a point. we just have to use the power we have, we have reasoning, we have logic, and we can put those to good use.

It would be in our best interests to keep this planet balanced would it not? I think we will in the end.

Personaly I think the planet is better off if there weren't so many people, not completly without. I think our population reached 6 billion or something give or take. The amount of resources we produce is more than we use for example how many of us throw out left overs we dont eat, now think about how many trees we cut down or the ever so popular topic of the Ozone and Global Warming, I think these topics are talked about so much people just accept it even if they are aware they figure it can be taken care of by the government or something. This way of thinking can't be easily stopped I don't think it can at all I don't think its human nature but just a way of life an easier way of life, we build evevators so we don't have to use stairs, giant stadiums to fit more people and make more money, cars to get around easier, more creative cell phones and GPS to only have to send more satilites into space to call people you could meet, and Universitys and Colleges to teach people to just "improve" upon this things, and so many more this we can live without. But will this cause even more problems more wars and more suffering or will it somehow help I honestly can't see how. I'm not saying throw away the last 200 years of human progression but we need to be aware that the cost of our living is far more greater then meaning less scrapes of paper that keep civilization in check.

PS:Those of you interested in anime and the Earth i suggest you watch Arjuna.

From a scientific standpoint the answer is no unless we continue to consume more far more resources than we produce. We are a necessary part of the balance (this may or may not always be true) and through proper management of our resources this planet would thrive. Too bad that overall we SUCK at that simple task.

From a purely Christian ( and an few other religions) we are supposed to be the stewards of this world (again we SUCK at our job).

We suck at a lot of jobs, that's why you see most people majoring in one subject, and there's a lot of ignorant morons...

I think I've always thought... since we're here. We have proclaimed ourselves as the most intelligent species, yet we are the only species that has annihilated others, made them extinct, and contaminate and pollute the world. We, by nature are selfish and selfcentered creatures. Overall, inconsiderate of the other creatures that we coexist with. We build cookie-cutter houses over a forest, then complain when the wildlife 'invades' our homes.

We steal from nature without contribution. We take, but don't give back enough. We plant trees, while we pave over a forest.

I saw somewhere once...
"Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned, the last fish has been caught, the last field has been paved over, we'll finally realise that we can't eat money."

Like global warming, I think its 'to little too late.' Sure, we need to try to make it better for our future generations, but we're far too late for stopping its acceleration now. I suppose I paint a bleak picture of human kind, but I believe its true. It doesn't mean that we can't try to change our ways.

I believe that we humans have our ecological niche in the world... yet we destroy others'. I think its not a necessity for humans to have been here... if we were removed, I believe the world would have been better off. However, the world is already on a collision course with disaster. So, either way... the world is and will be in bad shape... with or without us.

If something is important to you, you make time for it. (words that I live by) I think that humans have disturbed the ecosystem balance too greatly. I think its really too late to fix things so that they could return to the way that they were before our corruptive nature tainted the earth.

I'm rather fond of Aldo Leopold and his Land Ethic and his invention of the word and practices of Conservation. I believe that we're stewards of the land, responsible for the world. We have proclaimed ourselves masters of this earth, its our duty to take care of it.

I rather like these quotes of his, they sum up my views about this topic:

Land Ethic
"The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.

This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these 'resources,' but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state."

Conservation
"Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. By land is meant all of the things on, over, or in the earth. Harmony with land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left. That is to say, you cannot love game and hate predators; you cannot conserve the waters and waste the ranges; you cannot build the forest and mine the farm. The land is one organism. Its parts, like our own parts, compete with each other and co-operate with each other. The competitions are as much a part of the inner workings as the co-operations. You can regulate them 'cautiously' but not abolish them.

The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little we know about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

-Aldo Leopold-

I'm sure I've taken up a lot of space... I apologize, but I really felt like I wanted to put all of this down. Also, I guess its because I majored in Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Biology... That might be a reason why I've said so much.
Thanks for listening.