[condor]

Originally Posted by Ironhide

I agree, and that's a scary thought. To paraphrase from an article on this .

It is not that remote - so much pesticides being used, that bees stay away from farms. Farmers often avoid the bee & bird friendly plants, further reducing their habitat .. so many things happening in front of our eyes but we are not aware.

[Sandman689]

I often share this analogy with my friends:

We humans are like are very much like a virus.

We can either coexist with Nature (like micro biome in our stomachs)
or
In order to make ourselves at home, harm the planet in the process.(like a pathogenic virus)

If we're too successful, we end up with a mass extinction event wiping away a majority of earth's population along with us. This would in turn open up new niches in the food web and the Earth populated once again with thriving diversity of flora and fauna.


Since we humans are so self centered, we like to make a big deal out of global Warming and the rising sea levels because it affects Human Beings the most. And a lot of politicians take this as an advantage to meet their agenda.
We need to remember here that during the Jurassic period, the Earth was much warmer with higher sea levels. Peak time period when the cold blooded, non Avian Dinosaurs took off. There was tropical like weather even in the poles!


So even if we manage to self destruct and exist only in a blink of an eye (in geological terms), the Earth will once again thrive.

The sooner we realize that we're a disease to the Earth, the better. The faster we'll act!


Thanks very much. I really had to get if off my chest.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Offering here without comment : 50 Years of Failed Predictions
Please read on here

Thank you for sharing the "other side". I respect your right to put forth the view. Many in USA, especially that one country, believe fervently in what you write. Trumpistan was one prime example of this line of thought. These scientists of two generations back may have got the time frames wrong but not the journey. To quote a macabre example. Say a patient has some form of severe obesity and associated clogged arteries etc {the environment destruction} with limited desire to reduce weight and help himself {our lack of will} the doctors may tell him you have a reduced life span expectation and high risk of a serious heart attack. The doctor may not be able to accurately judge whether the patient will survive another 10 years {like a century in our case for the topic of this thread} or another 20 but that does not change the fact of the excessive strain on his heart and its vulnerability to a fatal heart attack and that his life span is in all likelihood shortened. Dramatic statements like some on the link you shared should not crowd out the more thought through analysis put forth by now thousands of studies on rising sea levels, melting ice caps, changing rainfall patterns, falling water tables {in India very real}, reduced forest cover, annual floods in North India riverine plains etc. Till then some of us are welcome to keep our heads in the sand till the tube well of our house or farm runs dry. For the author of that article my only comment is a less polite, 'there is no cure for stupid' .

[Thermodynamics]

Humans have and will be destroying life on earth. Deforestation, rerouting water ways, pollution, guillotine highways, Pesticides, GM seeds are just some of the numerous ways we slowly kill our planet.

However, recently there has been an increasing emphasis on sustainability like never before. At least from a petrochemical industry perspective I can tell you that the next few decades would witness a major revamp of whole value chain of chemicals and plastics as the industry is gearing up towards a “sustainable circular economy”. Research and technology development is on full swing.

At the end of the day, it is the political will and political coherence across nations that can bring about any meaningful change.

Facts: Per capita plastics consumption in India is way way lower than most countries. Average single use plastics consumption in India is 4kg/year as compared to some of the advanced countries (60 kg/year). Link.

And overall resin demand is


Source

[dragonfire]

Originally Posted by Ironhide

We may not have eradicated mosquitos but have managed to accelerate the pace at which we're destroying insects, and cumulatively that shall have catastrophic effects.

The original question was whether humans could destroy all life on the planet. If we couldn't kill off one insect even after trying all these years, how do you think we could kill off all life? Sure we have accelerated the extinction of a a lot of species. But that is because those species could not adapt to nature (which is not constant and keeps changing).

Climate and environment will keep changing, and man will keep adapting to it. Since evolution will take time, we use technology to suit ourselves to the environment around us.

All these environment protection agencies are political organizations seeking to spend public money for their own benefit. They only end up hindering development and progress.

[tilt]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

*SNIP*

Mother nature on planet Earth in its entirety works in more complex and more inter-dependent ways than we know or can comprehend. Mother nature also has a million ways of curing its self from all kinds of depredations be it a meteor strike or a super gigantic volcanic eruption that blots out the sun for weeks or one organism living on its surface getting too selfish and smart.*

I second this view.

The only thing humans will (probably) succeed in completely destroying is themselves and not "all life". Do we really believe we have the power to destroy the planet? I present one of the greatest stand-up comics speaking about this sheer arrogance of ours:

Cheers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM

[roy_libran]

Although a bit of a detraction from the subject of this thread, but in light of the repeated references it is perhaps worthwhile to point out that it is symptomatic of the habitually myopic perspective of most of our species, given our preoccupation with the success or failure of our efforts to eradicate mosquitoes with scant regard to the ecological role that mosquitoes play. Here's a simplified view.
We still collectively struggle to fathom the impacts even one of our actions or choices has, on the various components of nature, environment and on their interactions over different time-periods.

[yosbert]

Originally Posted by tilt

I present one of the greatest stand-up comics speaking about this sheer arrogance of ours:

Cheers

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM

I just came to this thread to post the exact same video. You just beat me to it
Coming to the topic, the wisdom in George Carlin's words are profound and human beings will do well to learn some humility.

[dragonfire]

Mankind is unlikely to become extinct. Species become extinct when they are not able to sustain themselves in a changed environment. Man has evolved beyond a point where he is at the mercy of the environment he is in. We have built the tools that can help sustain himself in whatever environment he is in. A penguin from the Antarctic will not be able to survive in the Sahara, but an human from the pole can travel to the equatorial region and live as long as he likes. Cos he depends on technology for his survival.

No amount of climate change or environmental "damage" is going to kill off the humans. We are way past that.

[Asish_VK]

Will human actions destroy all the life on earth ? NO.
Will human actions be the major cause of destruction of all life on earth ? YES.

No other species destroys the resources like we humans do.

[AirbusCapt]

I'll put in a perspective here which may be a bit shocking and unpopular. The root cause of all our miseries is overpopulation and unequal access to technology.
We are currently at 760 crores and growing at an average clip of about 2/3% (slightly above replacement rate). The problem is not that we are 7.x billion strong, the problem is that the poorest countries have the largest population. These poorest countries also have the least acess to technology and modern science. Hence fossil fuel burning (especially bio waste, wood, charcoal) is the most in such countries. These countries also lack access to proper food, fresh water and more often than not are in middle of a civil war or some other conflict. These countries also cause the maximum damage to their ecology by rampant forest degradation, wildlife culling and creation of slash and burn farmland.
If the world decides to reduce the population growth in such countries, we may be able to stop further ruin. The population reduction could be by means of better access to education, job opportunities, women empowerment, removing religious bigots, toppling tinpot dictators and pumping in resources to modernise such countries.
The popular thought process of trying to make the "haves" consume lesser resources is frankly quite absurd. The whole idea to becoming rich is to have a better lifestyle, if that urge is taken away, we will experience zero growth (as seen in the covid time of stay at home).

[francisvellara]

While we must definitely try to combat climate change, I feel like the idea of the human race being a 'virus' that destroys the Earth is quite misleading.

The reason we must fight climate change is to ensure that this planet remains hospitable to us. When someone says that we are 'destroying' the Earth, it only means that we are changing the Earth to a state where it is less hospitable/safe for us human beings. If we were to cut down every tree there is, a lot of life (including us) would possibly perish, but other lifeforms would flourish. It wouldn't be an objectively worse planet. It would just be worse for us.

[TrackDay]

The Ecosystem on this planet is made up of variety of life forms ranging from all kinds of flora, fauna, marine lives and us human beings. We will indeed manage to destroy almost everything and also us in the process, but not flora. The plant species always manages to find a way to reclaim it's territory. From covering up ghost towns to taking over abandoned nuclear plants, mother nature will indeed heal herself.

Images sources : Google images

[Tucker48]

No way humans could possibly achieve that. I firmly believe humans have a similar chance like any other animal who is genetically closer to humans.

Black death wiped out approximately 1/3rd of humanity in Europe. Current pandemic which is mostly blamed on bats(as first hosts) might had a significant impact on human death toll if not for medical/nutritional advancement. Bats are the most important mammals for the environment as a whole and bees come to a distant second place (not counting humans in it as I believe only other species can evaluate us better than we can)

Climate change is real and anything that doesn't change(relatively) is dead. So, we don't have to be afraid of climate change and accept to live with it. Technically we are still in a Ice-Age and this is a warm interglacial period which started around 12k years ago and with that many species flourished.

I'm only in favour of curbing pollution and of every kind but what defines pollution needs to be debated scientifically and more importantly honestly not like some developed nations who have plateaued their consumption peak and urging others to check on their consumption. After all, consumption is economy. More consumption leads to a bigger economy including wasteful consumption (I'm against wasteful consumption)

Lastly, owning too many things isn't good for us as individuals. The more you own, the more you will worry which is right opposite to the zero thought state of the mind. Indians were called snake charmers and cow worshippers but never did any developed nation(of that time) endorsed the same idea as that was not convenient for them at that time.

Result: Every news article, report, etc is biased if that is not coming from a person who has achieved zero thought state of mind. That is why the term 'Greater Good' is used. Even my comment is biased against developed nations.

[rijo_tj]

Originally Posted by dragonfire

No amount of climate change or environmental "damage" is going to kill off the humans. We are way past that.

So you mean to say a flash flood owing to glacier collapse ( because of rise in temperature) will not wipe out an entire city ? So you mean to say a cyclone hitting us due to the change in wind directions (due to change in ambient temperatures) will not cause massive destruction in populated areas ?

By killing of humans if you meant each and everyone who is currently alive in the world then that might not happen soon but to state that we can rely on technologies all the time to save our lives is a thought I cannot digest !!