Hello ladies and gentleman and welcome to my first blog ever. In my first blog, I would willingly like to talk about everything that catches my attention in a way in which I could pragmatically toss my thoughts spontaneously and expecting audiences to react to it and this time I'm going to talk about whether our mother Earth needs humanity in order to survive?
If we conspicuously look at the whole life of our planet "our mother Earth" and if we count the longevity of the existence of the living beings we will come to a conclusion that man has been around for a few blink of an eye and has interfered in the changes of our ecological system. Thousands of animals have been killed out of choice, they have even become extinct , people killing people for numerous reasons, the burst of wars, racism, sexism, supremacy, discrimination ...etc are affecting the consistency of our planet and most specifically our society as human beings. We are living a rather fragile and unpredictable existence. At any point ,we could be hit by a violent attack, the forces of nature or even a deadly disease. Do you think all of these inconveniences made drastic changes in our natural world? (in a negative way of course) We, humans, exploit almost all the given resources from our planet to survive without giving back, all what humans do is to predominantly destroy everything they think it's worth destruction. Are humans considered a multiplying epidemic virus? or can they also be an antidote/a treatment for our mother Earth? In other words, does our planet needs us on this planet to survive? If something wipes us all out, do you think that Earth will return back to normality? On the macro scale, we continue to participate in a system we know is not about actually helping or fixing problems. To me, humans need to move to take responsibility for the living Earth without exploiting and using massive destruction as they are planning to do in the future.
Comments
I'm not sure if the earth needs us as much as we need it, but surely it will need us to do no more harm and to compensate our destructions. Have you ever watched the documentary "home"? It's a great movie about earth. You have written a very nice and thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
It's not only that the planet Earth doesn't need the existence of the human being at all. We could even say the human being is like a cancer for the Earth and that cancer is in a serious metastasis process.
"If all the insects were to disappear from the Earth, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish." ~ Jonas Salk
Oi again, folks
Ok, let's speculate on whether there might be life on other planets, not only in our solar system but throughout the whole abysmal universe, which the ancient greeks called "cosmos".
In the far past there was a theory that only Earth contains life and this theory was mostly based on religious belief that God created the human race and all the rest was just a supplement to enrich their life here.
In more recent times, scientists and explorers have come to the conclusion that life in the form that we know is not the only possible form. Light was thought to be a mandatory agent for sustaining life - it is needed for the precess of photosynthesis in plants as well as for protein based life, yet explorers of deep sea have come across life in areas completely void of sunligh...it prospered fairy well around theral chimneys at the bottom of the deest oceans where the life sustaining agent was heat and chemicals saturating the water around it.
Explorers also found life in deep labyrinth of caves underwater where no light or oxygen was present, yet there was life..not only bacterial, but also multi- cellular organism as fish and insects.
It is a well known fact that many micro-organisms can survive and strive in oxygenfree environments...they are the so called anaerobic organisms such as bacterias and even other multicellular organism.
Scientists encountered living organisms in almost boiling hot water springs. There was life even in very acidic environment such as volcano lakes filled with water being actually a strong solution of sulfuric acid.
Another aspect of life on Earth is that it was assumed that only protein can be a building material for living organism, which has been proven wrong by the latest scientific studies. Therefore, assuming that only an environment similar to Earth can sustain life is a gross overstatemnt.
I would not be surprised if in the nearest future as we explore the cosmos in a wider and more sophisticated manner, we may encounter life of different form not necessarily based on protein, oxygen and sunlight.
That's for sure, Lucinka. I would rather sacrify using deodorant and I ill be satisfied inhaling the fresh scent of outdoors. In much the same way I would walk or use a bike rather than drive. It makes me feel connected to the mother Earth by creating a community with it. It's all about awareness, Lucinka. That's the only thing you have as an intelligent human being. :)
Yes, Lucinka. It is possible, there could also be another habitable zone(s) apart from Earth on other planets until we get a clear evidence for the sustainability of lifeforms. Yes, but not only that it's also because of its appropriate distance from the sun and its rocky composition and the protective advantage from its atmosphere. I think global warming is accelerating glacial melt but would you think that the melting and the freezing process will keep its natural rotation cycle ? when global warming interferes in that situation... and for your last questionable dilemma, I guess your implication was that both aersols (deodorants) are still bad for the ozone layer and cars with their greenhouse effect which eventually results in a predictable Global warming. So, I won't use both, that's my final answer if I thoroughly got you implication of your last statement. :)
Nice to see you Mr.Rys taking part in this interesting conversation. Yes, that was the proposal of the thoughts that I have arranged in my first written prose. And the question was "Does Earth need humans?" and the answer will automatically be "Of course not !" how dare I ask such a crystal clear question. Well, back to the statement, it is undoubtedly true what you and Lucinka have just stated in terms of elucidating the independence of Earth on humans. Earth would be better if there was no intelligent terrestrial selfish being on its earthly ground.
By asking these two irrelevant questions, it was my intention to come to a point where I would deliberately like to get a conclusion whether other planets apart from Earth may be considered dead or lifeless by the absence of lifeforms and geological activity on them... In other words, are all lifeforms what makes a lively earth? excluding water and oxygen that make earth a habitable zone...
Humans are like the disease on this planet, they proliferate until every natural resources is consumed but I would like to know if humans can also contribute positively in giving back to Earth like the climate change...Thank you Mr.Rys again for stopping by and taking time in exploring the implication, I highly appreciate it :)
Oi there folks,
The question posed is:"Does Earth need humans"....and the phisical answer is: No, it does not! As Lucinka was kind to notice, planet Earth existed for millions of years without a single human being fouling it with its faul existance....and what more, following Lucinka's thought..it would prospere a lot better withou them.
The author of this blog was kind to ponder:"do you think that other planets can hold life like ours? So, what brought life to our planet?" Well...that is a question in no way connected with Earth needing humans...as they did not bring or create life on this planet.
There was life on Earth long, long before the so called homo sapiens species started its nefarious existance. The humans, like a malignant tumor, invade and bring devastation and final destruction of its hosting environment - and this is the fate awaiting Earth from the hands of humans.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next