Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
It doesn't. I'm not making an argument for either answer. I'm asking a question.
If you think the world would be a better place without humans, (and I am assuming you are a human if you are reading this) would you be willing to leave this world in order to make it better?
I was agreeing with you. Recognizing a problem is the first step in doing something about it. Suggesting that someone "get off" the planet in order to make it better is just as silly as "America, love it or leave it". Both are forms of jingoism.
I much prefer the proactive approach of recognizing there is a problem and thinking what to do about it.
Extremists want fewer people and would most likely be happy with forced steriization. Isn't that what we are moving towards with childless couples, the down-play of traditional marriage, and the center stage that gay/transgendered anything takes?
Why do you think extremists want fewer people? From what I can see, most extremist movements seem to want more offspring of their own kind (Christian, Muslim, Nazi etc).
Atheist are probably no more extremist than Christians, Muslims or Nazis. I do find it intersting that you listed those three "extremist" groups together and left out Atheist though.
It depends on who you use as reference. From a human vieuwpoint it would be bad without them, many other organisms would benefit from the absence of humans (except for instance human parasites and livestock). To me the world just "is" so I don't see it as either "good" or "bad" - I see it as neutral and that is not depending on the presence of humans. Therefore I cannot answer this questions with a yes or no.
[5 points]2 years ago by pollewopReplyEdited 2 years ago by pollewop
New Zealand
who would care?
Lots of happy little woodland animals. My cat would miss me, though...(I think...)
I think life in nature is pretty lousy whether we're involved or not.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Replyreally well wat about us where would we live??????????????????????
I think the premise of the questions supposes us not in existence.
Are those who answer yes willing to leave?
How does that constitute an argument?
It doesn't. I'm not making an argument for either answer. I'm asking a question.
If you think the world would be a better place without humans, (and I am assuming you are a human if you are reading this) would you be willing to leave this world in order to make it better?
Because if your not willing to do something about the problem then really all your doing is complaining which just makes the situation worse.
Exactly. Which is why I despise such comments as, "America, love it or leave it".
I dont get your point. Im not sure how you got to that train of thought by what I said...
I was agreeing with you. Recognizing a problem is the first step in doing something about it. Suggesting that someone "get off" the planet in order to make it better is just as silly as "America, love it or leave it". Both are forms of jingoism.
I much prefer the proactive approach of recognizing there is a problem and thinking what to do about it.
Define better. And tell us which species will become dominant when we go extinct in, say, a few tens of millions of years time.
Extremists want fewer people and would most likely be happy with forced steriization. Isn't that what we are moving towards with childless couples, the down-play of traditional marriage, and the center stage that gay/transgendered anything takes?
Why do you think extremists want fewer people? From what I can see, most extremist movements seem to want more offspring of their own kind (Christian, Muslim, Nazi etc).
Curiously enough you left atheists off of your list.....
Just get to the point. You obviously want to accuse atheists of something: Let's hear it.
All Im saying is that you left them off of your "extremist" list.
Thereby saying they should be on it. So what, specifically, are you accusing atheists of? You must have a reason to think of them as extremists?
Atheist are probably no more extremist than Christians, Muslims or Nazis. I do find it intersting that you listed those three "extremist" groups together and left out Atheist though.
Still, you are seemingly unable to explain why this should be "interesting".
It depends on who you use as reference. From a human vieuwpoint it would be bad without them, many other organisms would benefit from the absence of humans (except for instance human parasites and livestock). To me the world just "is" so I don't see it as either "good" or "bad" - I see it as neutral and that is not depending on the presence of humans. Therefore I cannot answer this questions with a yes or no.
If there's any species that could ever develop the means to survive a planet-wide extinction, it is the humans.
Humans do create majority of the issues on this world, but if we didn't exist I wouldn't be typing so no thanks! I'm happy sticking around
power to the cockroaches!!