Director Roger Nygard traveled the world asking theologians, scientists, skeptics, and everyday people 85 tough questions to try to understand The Nature of Existence! Now that he’s asked the experts, it’s YOUR TURN! To offer your own insights on today’s question, “Is the world a better place for having had humans in it?“, Leave a Reply below!
Considering all the wars, diseases, and pollution we have caused and continue to spread, no the world is not a better place because of us.
We have done a horrible job of taking care of our planet.
humans exist, no higher purpose, products of evolution, simple products of random mutations in both memes and genes, and were not special creations. not very evolutionarily beneficial as a species to themselves or other lifeforms. most destructive and dangerous too. At some point these things will cause their extinction , as is the course with any maladaptive organism. simple as that.
When we were here at first, we were all natural. Even the native americans, they didn’t pollute, and they only took what they needed from the earth. But now that is all destroyed, thanks to some greedy power fiend out there, and there is way to much media and garbage rotting our brains away, taking away our appreciation for the natural beauty of this earth. So at first, we were no harm. But now we are braindead and do nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. I still don’t understand how one can own land when it was all of ours to begin with.
Romantic ideas of the past are not always supported by the facts. Archaeology is partially based on finding piles of garbage. But destruction is part of the cycle. Hydrogen from the Big Bang was consumed by the stars, not very nice for those poor hydrogen atoms, but it is what led to us. We can be measured in what we destroy and be thankful for everything that contributes to our existence. If you do that well, eventually something else will have you to thank for whatever it is you gave.
If one reads “world” as planet, then of late, there is nothing positive that I can think of regarding the existence of humans on the earth. I think that since the industrial revolution our relationship with the planet has gone from symbiotic to parasitic. We will either create conditions of our own demise, or the planet may get lucky and stem the infection. There’s a slim chance we can stop being the greedy, ruthless, monkeys that we are and learn how to live in harmony again with the planet. Looking at the world’s leaders, it’s a very slim chance indeed.
Both “world” and “Better” are relative and subjective. There is no one answer to this question, all answers are correct.
Sort of a pointless question, don’t you think? And, at least as far as we know, those who might be able to legitimately answer it are not capable of communicating with us.
“Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.” – AS
Yes. Humans cause great turmoil for ourselves and nature with war and the atrocities of men, however great things also come from humans such as love, generosity and compassion. Although this opinion is most likely biased due to the fact the author is human.
Irrelevant as humans are the only creatures known to assign such values. Without us there would be no “better” and no “worse”, the world would simply *be*.
We are like greedy locusts who consume everything around us, with no regard to future generations. And why should we? With a religious mindset that we will all be “caught up” in the rapture (which they say could be any day now), we excuse ourselves from the real sin of polluting and pillaging mother earth. Well, what if it doesn’t come for another 1000 years? What if it never comes? What then? We’ve destroyed something beautiful that cannot be replaced.
No, the only species who benefits from human existance is human.
As subjective a question as it is, I think the world is a much better place for having us in it. All by itself the world was creating a greater variety of things and increasing the pace as it was doing it and since humans have come about this process has been further intensified. Our capacity to create and appreciate the world that we live in seems to be greater than anything else we know of. We`ve created so many amazing things that could not have been made as they are without our unique position and even the things that we`ve done that are generally considered negative inspire countless works of art, broaden our perspectives, bring out incredible emotion and inspire virtuous action. Nothing we know of brings the potential of this world to the surface like we do and it`s of no surprise to me that we make many mistakes while doing so but I don`t think that devalues us or takes away from the great things we have accomplished. If we don`t learn from these mistakes in the end then it`s our own loss and I imagine the world will go on without us, but we very well may pull through – all the wiser for our experiences along the way. In any event I consider this place all the richer for our brief episode in its vast history.
That’s a difficult question, and it depends how you measure it. Certainly, we pollute the Earth and make it less beautiful, and we cause a lot of suffering to the other animals here.
Humans appear to be the only species who can consider such a question, and many will answer yes because they value their own species. But really, if we hadn’t existed, it’s not like we would be missing out. We wouldn’t know we didn’t get to exist.
For the time being, we make the world worse. I have hope that we can change that.
Is the world a better place for having had humans in it? The question is difficult to answer because of its very nature. “Better” is extremely subjective and reliant on what specifically it is being compared to. Better how? Better because of the introduction of art, depth of emotion, knowledge, creation, destruction, yearning, traveling, transforming, cooperation, what are we talking about here? The scope of the question is entirely reliant on human emotion. In terms of the “world” what is considered good and bad? Even pollution and destruction, or the view that humans are nothing more than parasites feeding on the earth can be viewed simply as a causal effect. We are simply something that is happening or affecting the planet.
So considering the question in a respectful scope…a question proposed by humans, in a biased manner, towards other humans the only answer I can see is yes. The world is better off for having humans, because we are happy to have eachother. Among the vast majority of all who have lived and all who are currently alive, how many could say that they did not enjoy the company of mankind? How many could say that did not enjoy the inventions or thoughts of others? How many could say that the existence of at least one other did not make their own more worthwhile?
Better with human existence? Unanswerable.
YES. This is extremely important to understand.
To reduce the question to issues of pollution or “species-bias” is a grave mistake. We have to see humanity in real terms of context.
The core of the issue is the illusion that we are separate from nature. This is an impossibility. There was no fall from grace, no lamentable deviation from a (fictional) ideal native tribal state. Humanity is the spearhead of a global process.
The ecosystem did not produce self-reflecting primates by accident. The human experience is something that pulls matter and energy through time towards itself. It has pulled us from hydrogen and helium, towards complex chemicals towards organisms, towards mammals, towards primates, towards opposable thumbs, towards language, towards agriculture, towards technology. These things are all part of nature’s process.
Every power plant is a part of nature, every automobile, every road, power line, school, hospital, skyscraper. These are cells, organs made of cement and metal instead of proteins and vitamins. Civilization is something that GROWS.
We cannot help but drive ourselves towards more sophistication, more connectedness, more communication technologies. We are like stem cells. We are building something; a global nervous system, like in a fetus. The planet is a placenta for the child that is humanity.
We were supposed to cut down the trees, we were supposed to take the oil out of the ground, we were supposed to eventually realize the alternatives. None of this happened by accident. NOTHING happens by accident. We are the caterpillar, and we can’t help but devour all the leaves in our path. Now things are getting very strange, and we have a strange desire to construct a cocoon of a global society. The caterpillar cannot imagine itself a butterfly, not any more than we can imagine what we are being drawn towards. Planet Earth is our egg. We are being born. We are just getting started.
That depends entirely on who is asking the question, doesn’t it?
It’s better for humans even if we wreck the ability of the earth to support us, IF you believe that it’s better to have existed as a species at all, regardless of the outcome. There are probably species or even whole categories of species that would be better off if we were not here. Of course, many species have gone extinct well before we got involved enough to affect the environment. In the short term (meaning decades and even centuries), much of the life on the Gulf Coast would have been better off if humans were not in place. But then, that life is not capable of contemplating the question. It is only capable of suffering the effects.
Ultimately this may be a meaningless question to anyone but humans, unless other life evolves to the point that it can be aware of a “big picture.” When the sun goes nova in about 4 billion years, it will all be a very moot point.
This is an informative post, thanks a lot!
The world was created for the experience of everything that exists on it.
Earth would flourish without humans.
Human is just a step in the evolution. Most of us assume that we are the most advanced living entity in the evolution hierarchy so far and currently ruling the world. How can we be so sure? Look, our ancestor primates are still around us. Do our earliest ancestor bacteria/ameoba has any sense that humans exist in their same plane of existance? Do we feel to stop by and talk to ants when we pass an ant colony? Do even the fishes know that another world exist over the surface of the pond?
From ameoba to human (Even fish to mammals) is a huge leap of evolutionary change. Likewise, I suspect human has already evolved to a species which is able to live independent of a material, biological body and might even be able to sense and dwel in other dimension invisible to us! (Like angels. aliens or even Gods?) We can’t sense infra red/ultra violet lights and othes in khown electromagnetic spectrums, how can we say that we know all?
Everything in the univers follow evolutionary process. Universes constantly go through re-incarnations, like tropical trees in every seasons. Even the gods evolve into greater gods (They are bigger in size–may be that’s why we see big statues of bodishattava everywhere!). Read Buddhist cosmology in Wiki and you’ll see even in some ‘Lokas’ (dimensions or worlds) Gods are not even aware of other gods who lives in lower Lokas!
Better for humans, yes. Without humans, the question is rather meaningless. The vast majority of species that ever existed, exisited prior to humans, and almost all of those became extinct before humans arrived. Was that a good or a bad thing?
I think Carole has the most accurate answer. The word “better” is meaningless. Because all things, seen and unseen, were created by Christ Jesus, who is the God of all gods, and Lord of all lords, and all, even humans, were made for Him!
Better for US, maybe. Otherwise, again, it just doesn’t seem relevant to anything. If it were possible to ask any of the many species which have gone extinct as a direct result of our presence in the world, I think you’d get a very clear answer to the contrary. Whether humans exist or not, “the world” continues anyway for “better” or “worse”, so the question seems completely irrelevant except as a marker of what humans are thinking.
Absolutely not…not yet. Humanity COULD be a boon to the world, to the universe, but as yet it is nothing but a plague upon all that is not human.
We destroy forests to feed ourselves, and to tear resources from the ground beneath. We thoughtlessly consume the life of the land and seas to fill our bellies. We fill our air, seas, and ground with toxins. We destroy all that does not directly or indirectly support our growth and domination of the world.
But, we could still help the world be a paradise, if we’d stop taking more than our share, and stop trying to rule that which does not belong to us exclusively. Time will tell.
“Better” is a relative term we humans use frequently, so many would say yes. I, however, don’t think humans have made the planet “better” in an earth-centric sort of way. I think we’ve made our own lives “better”. Earth couldn’t care less.
The planet had far more biodiversity before we came on the scene, so if I were another species on earth, I would certainly want the humans gone.
That’s debatable. Considering the universe is mostly dark matter and dark energy, the tangible (including us) is nothing to the Universe as a whole. But as far as this grain of sand called Earth, we could certainly be more mindful of things like preserving natural resources, and controlling the population. But the fact that Earth is still habitable, well it could be worse.. until we become one of the .99 of species to have become extinct then it’ll be moot.
Based on the current evidence, no, the world is not better off with us in it. We seem to be the only creatures on the planet who are determined to destroy everything, even ourselves.
If we can reduce our population to a sustainable number then perhaps we could be a benefit. We have accomplished so many wonderful things, but I fear this ends in tradegy, our fatal flaws win in the end.
We have to define “better”. Better for whom or for what? If the better is defined as a nicer place with harmony among all the living things on it, evidence has shown humans to be one of the most cruel predators nature has ever conceived. Borrowing from The Matrix movie, have you seeing the definition of a virus? We are one. So, from that point of view or perspective, no, it is not better, it is worst.
Not necessarily. Even if we’re at all consequential to “the world” in its entirety to begin with, we’ve shown just as much if not more potential to be worse for it as better.
Without humans there’d be nothing deliberately doing wrong. With this imperfection the knowledge is greater and the world is better.
In the past, many extinctions were caused by climate change, continental drift, and the like. Currently, however, the extinction rates have increased dramatically. In recent years, the extinction rate is 1000 times higher than fossil record. In the future, the predicted extinction rate is more that ten times higher than that 1000.
Not necessarily. The trends for the fundamental survival of our Earth planet don’t look too good, mostly thanks to Human kind
As they show in the Zoo, “Most dangerous animal” and one sees a mirror.
All life forms eventually become extinct, including humans. We are never getting off this rock and this rock will end someday. Does it really matter when? Even if man survives another 10 million years we won’t be here to acknowledge it. People complain about the damage we have done to the environment but the environment doesn’t care. The environment is in a state of constant change. For now it is suitable for human life but the day is coming when it won’t be. Sooner or later is irrelevant. None of us will likely still be here unless it happens in 2012. People are concerned about future generations. Why? When we die we won’t even know there are future generations or that we ever existed. Whether the world becomes uninhabitable thru the actions of man or natural causes is irrelevant. Even if man annihilated the entire planet with nukes some life forms would survive. The planet could eventually regenerate itself as it has in the past and life could once again flourish. Humans could even reemerge on the planet again to start over.
We Will Never Know.
We Will Be Dead.
Humans are just like any other animals. We have drives to eat, procreate, dominate. We want things to be comfortable to US, and pretty much to hell with everyone or everything else.
Do we believe that any other animal having gained intelligence through evolution would be “better” for the world than we are? Cats? Bears? Wolves? Sloths?
We are what all animals are. We are just very successful at it. The only reason the cats, bears, wolves, and sloths haven’t done the same things to the planet that we have is that they haven’t been given the opportunity.
I also find it hard to believe the romantic myth of the primitive man who was one with nature. Primitive man was merely trying to survive. They were low in number, so their survival didn’t threaten the survival of everything else. There are now a whole lot of us, and no matter how noble we try to be about “saving the [whatever],” when it comes down to it, it’s them or us, and we will choose us. Every time.
Definitely not. But since we ARE here, we should try to make the best of it and continue our survival as far as possible. Although we’re basically slowly killing our planet, we still deserve to survive as a species.
That is meaning less. We are suitable to be here, that why we are here and nature is not terminating us as it did with dinosourus. The actual questions should be, are we making ourself suitable to be here? This will be depends on our actions. Because for every action, nature shows reaction.
Yes. The Earth is ours, not the other way round.
“Better” assumes a question of worth and value. There is no such thing as values for existence, or for the world. Without human beings there is no “better” and no “value” period. So yes.
If we are finally capable of mastering our baser instincts (religion, war, mayhem), yes. If not, no.
For better and worse we are in this world. This is a question that can be answered by each person who is knowingly making the world better if they understand to do this. The natural world could certainly be better off without our meddling, but we have a karmic destiny with all the living beings with which we share our planet. The choice is ours to be co-workers with the natural world with life or we can through ignorance and neglect allow a few dark beings to destroy the balance of life on this planet.
we are the world . so to me its a strange question.
and what is better ?
for me, ya, or else i wouldn’t be here. but from natures point of view, no.