What's best for Earth?

In your opinion, what is best for Earth? If you had your way, what would become of the Earth?

For example, in my opinion, the best possible fulfillment of Earth's potential would be to have
human beings multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it. In my opinion, the Earth, and all that is about it, derives its highest value from its value to human beings. I am a humanist not an environmentalist. My goal for the environment is not to minimize human impact on the environment. My goal for the environment is to maximize human wellbeing.

What do you think is best?

 

gee golly willkers batman, that sounds just awful.

I'm hoping for a long term symbiotic relationship between mankind and earth, and personally i'd prefer that we reduce population down to 60% of current levels and maintain that figure.

 

A "relationship"? With the planet? Is that the kind of "relationship" one has with a garden or a mine?

 

The earth has no conscience so I don't think it's interesting to give it intentions.

The best for mankind would be to survive, when you cause too much damages to your ecosystem, you die, that's what happened on easter islands, they cut all the trees and when the euros landed in their islands, there were just a dozen of survivor left, on an island who knew thousands of people.

 

Well, that's a theory. We don't really know what happened on Easter Island.

I do agree that we should do with our planet whatever is best for human beings. Our environmental goal should not be to minimize human impact on the environment but to maximize human well being.

We must manage our resources wisely if we are going to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.

 

You just described the life cycle of a virus.

 

As far as we know, the island was full of forest and they destroyed it. Pretty sure we have good ideas of how they caused their fate.

Concerning human population, I consider that a region should be relatively self sufficient, I consider that for a country to be totally dependant of food importations is a poor decision.
From my point of view, you're making a false dualism, the long-term human well being is, as I understand things, codependant of well being of the ecosysteme. If we destroy our nowodays ecosystem beyond repair, the human population would collapse. I'm not against the increase of human population, but at a small pace.
I red a long time ago in a scientific newspaper that over population and fast population expansion lead often to population collapse.

I'm afraid that the 21th century will be quite dark for mankind. Let's hope the people I listen and I will be wrong.

 

Do you regard humanity as a virus?

Do you believe that all virus kill their hosts or are even harmful to them?

Do you know that, pound for pound, there are more virus on Earth then any other type of life?

 

It seems to me that we are in complete agreement on how to best have human beings multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.

 

I suppose we agree but don't says that in the same way. I'm not sure it's extremly reasonnable to multiply more. In 2 centuries, we went from 500 millions human being to 8 billions, I'm afraid we could be back to 500 millions or less if we continue in that path.
Furthermore, I think it's necessary to get a minimum of nature. I maybe project too much, but without a minimum of nature, I become mad. It always make me sad to see more and more forest and fields being destroyed to build some Ikea or shopping center.
Concerning subduing nature, did you ever rode a horse ? I never did that for a long time, but when you ride with a horse, you can't subdue him totally. You have to learn to know the horse and adjust your behavour back to the horse. Basically, beyond subduing, you have to "collaborate" with the horse, earn his trust. I have difficulties with that word "subdue". I don't think we can "subdue" earth.

I fear that the damages we caused to nature until now could have terrific consequences in the next decades/century. Again, let's hope I will be wrong. The deceased genius Stephen Hawking was fearing a disappearance of mankind in 2100.

What I think would be the best for the near future ? Starting to consume less in the countries people consume the most, and creating more durable objects inside buy and throw things. Helping the poorest countries to have better life level, as I tend to consider that word inequalities favour overconsumption. Stabilize world population, either the countries with too few children should get a little bit more and the one with too much a little bit less. Having less intensive economic systems but more durable. I know it won't and can't happen.

Behavour of our species remind me the "live fast, die early" of some people.

 

Easter Island had a healthy population when it was first visited by Dutch sailors, perhaps as many as 10,000. However, by the time the next European ship returned the population had been ravaged by diseases brought by the first visitors.
When New Zealand decided to corral all the natives onto one small
part of the island and turn the rest over to sheep there were still around 1800 inhabitants left.
The trees were cut down to make room for agriculture. Easter Islanders were actually very successful considering the poor quality of the soil. If anything, Easter Island should be used as an example of great environmental conservation. They employed many successful practices and supported a large population on very few resources.
They still found time to build hundreds of large statues and move them all over the island.

 

It was actually overgrazing by the sheep brought by Europeans which did the most environmental damage to Easter Island.

 

By all means, we need to be wise about how we manage our planet to maximize human well being.

 

Look up the term “Malthusian Catastrophe”

 

Do you consider it inevitable? In other words, do consider the goal of human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it to be folly, at best, or sin at worst?

 

Don’t even go there with the environmental disasters Australia has brought on itself

 

The real question is how will you prevent environmental disaster?

As I said we Aussies have learn the hard way not to **** with nature

 

total nuclear annihilation...

 

Me? I'm certainly not trying to minimize human impact on the environment. I'm trying to maximize human well being. Disasters don't that.

 

Use it to the fullest extent necessary to get us to other habitable worlds, then create of it a shrine to Humanity's beginnings.

 

The earth is not a living entity that can have interests. Nothing can be good or bad for it. To think otherwise is animism.

 

Earth derives its value from its value to human beings. The best possible fulfillment of Earth's potential is for human beings to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.

 

The trouble with this thinking is obvious. Man will survive and possibly thrive but we will lose so much in the process. When the Elephants are gone... and the Bison... and the Wolf ... the endless variety of birds, fishes, trees, and other species will be missed. Kinda sad really.

 

The complete and total extinction of the entire human race. Only then can the planet truly benefit, as nature will reassert itself and the remaining species will evolve and adapt to their surroundings. Humans do not adapt and evolve, they destroy all that is before them in the name of their own comfort.

If you as a human are currently alive, then you are ultimately a part of the problem by extension.