The natural role of the human species on the Earth

No I'm not. I understand that a domesticated cow is a living cow. My point, for example, is that our impact from breeding and domesticating those cows on millions of acres of land across the globe utilizing millions upon millions of tons of resources and food to maintain it only helps humans and NOTHING more. Do you deny that?

 

What you are postulating is that we are not natural to earth. Please explain that one.

 

Maybe we are Martian!

- - - Updated - - -

And that makes no sense. I have no idea what you're implying again sending this to silly land.

 

maybe our purpose is to spread life around the universe

perhaps there are many spirits waiting for a chance at human life....

.

 

We are natural to the Earth as an animal species sure, but my point is that we provide very little, if not anything at all, to the ecosystem or to life on Earth. Nearly everything that our species does is meant to benefit only us, usually at the expense and life of everything else. While all species do things to improve or sustain their own lives most do not actively damage or harm, directly or indirectly, other species or an ecosystem as a whole. Even predation is natural in an ecosystem and is done responsibly by animals that are supposedly not as intelligent, but the way our species impacts an ecosystem goes far beyond that in my opinion.

 

Still natural because that is what we are.

 

We're definitely destroying the planet, and other species are suffering due to our domination. Of course, we can still dominate the planet without destroying it, but we're greedy. I believe in the intrinsic (non-utilitarian) value of life -- whether it's human or not. Humans are different, though, because we have the ability to be members of the moral community. Moral agents have: the ability to communicate; self-awareness; rationality; autonomy; and a few other characteristic. Of course, animals have none of these features.

From a biblical perspective, we're the shepherds of the Earth, and we have a moral obligation to care for it. From an ethical perspective, we should recognize the intrinsic value of life. From a selfish perspective, we have to live on this Earth, so we may as well take care of it so that we'll be healthier.

- - - Updated - - -

How insightful and wrought with meaning.

 

An oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico for example is not natural, it's not from the Earth or contributing to its ecosystems. Just because we built it doesn't make it natural in the sense that it is part of an ecosystem. You are treating this debate in a kind of disingenuous way to be honest. A massive oil spill caused by human invention and human error is not natural. An earthquake caused by plates shifting is natural.

 

Of course it is natural. If some great alien intelligence came to study us, they would not think twice about what we do as unnatural. Why? Because it is what we do as natural creatures of this planet.

 

I mostly agree but I do however disagree with most of your last couple of sentences. I believe that there are many animal species on Earth that have many of the same moral agents as you called them as we humans do. Just because we may not understand their language, their behaviors, or their structures does not necessarily make them unequal to that of a human. I don't believe that humans are superior to other life forms on this planet. We are unique sure, but so are billions of other species, and a very large percentage of those other species keep our species and other notable species alive and healthy in spite of our irresponsibility and selfish and destructive nature.

 

How does 99% of what we humans create for ourselves benefit the ecosystem in which we live in and also the plants and animal species that we SHARE that ecosystem with?

 

And again, why this thread is silly. you are just anti human. I knew that was your intent from the OP. You are in some mythical plane driving your own idea. To expect everyone to discuss is just silliness. SILLY

 

Which has nothing to do with whether we are natural or anything we do isn't.

 

What is your definition of natural? We probably have two different points of view on that for starters. I understand and acknowledge that humans beings are natural in that they are animals just like any other animal, but that's not what I am discussing here. I am talking about human impact on the Earth and how we as a species contribute very little to an ecosystem in the same way that 99% of other plants and animals contribute. Most of what we do only benefits our species and harms other species. If you remove the human being from an ecosystem the likelihood of that ecosystem improving grows. That is unless you view a new shopping mall as a natural part of the Earth and better for the ecosystem that it was built in than the trees or wetland it was built on top of and the plant and animal species that was helping to make that spot flourish.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not anti-human. I am though against much of what we as a species are doing and have done to the planet in very selfish and destructive ways. Again though, if you find the topic so silly then stop commenting, OR perhaps, answer my questions.

 

Still doesn't address the fact that because we are natural to Earth, as you admit, that what we do would be unnatural. That would not make sense.

 

I don't view a lot of what we do as natural to the Earth. We will have to agree to disagree I guess because we are basically talking in circles. What about my question that I posed to you and others though? Do you believe that human expansion and development, which is only beneficial to our species, good or bad for the Earth's ecosystems in which those items are built or where we expand to?

 

Well then, that is a completely different question than what we do is natural or not. In effect, what we do is no different than any animal. Do you think it is good for the Gazelle to be eaten by a Lion? After all, the Lion is only doing it for itself.

 

Or birds building nests with sticks, grass, and whatever other items they find. Any different than building a house as a human does? Same basic materials.

 

The same could be said of every known organism on our planet. You appear to have a very poor grasp of what is "natural".

There are good arguments to be made that humans should be better stewards of our environment. You aren't making any of those arguments. Instead, you are accusing humans of being unnatural spoilers of an imaginary paradise that exists only within your mind.

 

I totally disagree that we owe something as stewards. We exist on this planet for a reason. You nor I have any idea what that reason is. We are evolving with each and every other species on this planet. We learn and adapt. That is our role. Unless of course you have the directions as to how to build a human being. We humans actually correct bad things after observations and understandings. But in order to exist, we utilize the resources available on this planet. Period. That is natural.

 

Yes that is the natural role of the gazelle in the food web, however, the gazelle also during its lifetime will help keep savanna grasses under control along with other ungulates and their dung helps provide nutrients to the soil which helps future generations of gazelle and so in turn, lions.

- - - Updated - - -

Sticks and grass eventually fall back down to the ground and biodegrade which then helps the soil or they are reused by other animals. A house of concrete, plaster, plastic, fiberglass, and so on does not.

 

So we are doing the same thing, changing the environment to suit ourselves.

 

You are welcome to hold your opinion. I prefer not to poop in my own nest. Your preferences may vary.

 

We change the environment to suit ourselves but what we change provides no benefit to the ecosystem, in fact it typically harms it. This is in stark contrast to that of say the african savanna where every animal has a purpose and their roles in the daily life of that ecosystem helps one another in indirect and direct ways. How does a shopping mall benefit an ecosystem?

 

So when a beaver builds a dam, who does that benefit?