With every passing day its getting clearer that the chief destroyer of Nature is Human and its activities. So the proposition is that the "Nature will be safer without human being". Do you agree
Humans negatively impact the environment through industrial pollutants dumped in waterways, destroying forest, burning of fossil fuels affecting climate change etc.,
100% sir. Entire ecosystems, habitats and species that have existed for many thousands and in some cases millions of years could disappear in a little as a few decades with the help of human...
Yes, of course. But I think the question is about essentialism or importance. A condition always transcends its effect in essentiality. Nature is our condition, so reality gives it priority over us. So us that destroy it, we should rethink about ourselves, because as it is, Nature is justified of getting rid of an unwanted and un-fundamental excrescence. David
Humans negatively impact the environment through industrial pollutants dumped in waterways, destroying forest, burning of fossil fuels affecting climate change etc.,
Yes, I agree with you. Human has breaking natural balance through industrial development.
You see but our god ALLAH created humans.The right word is BAD HUMAN. FRIENDLY HUMAN will finally rule the Earth.Best regards.
No, i am not agree with this statment. Actually all the component make balance of the nature. When any component increased more it will be adjust automatically in to the nature by any event. So no need to be worried about human being, we are increasing more ane more and will be adjusted in time.
NO. I am a very strong believer that no one can destroy nature. We may create an imbalance in it but as it goes out of equilibrium the restoring forces start building immediately and place it again in its equilibrium. So don’t worry about nature, it is very much capable of taking care about itself. My only worry is, what will happen on that day when nature will decide to extinct mankind.
Dear Subrata,
you see the problem in a narrow way of technics. Machines don't make mistakes but they are no living subjects, have no culture and no intelligence.
Perhaps sometimes the Human Being is dying out and whole nature exists without Human Beings, That's possible but this world would be reigned by rough nature laws with only animals and plants. And perhaps in some times a new species like the Human Being will be born.
So be patient - the Human Being makes errors - you are right, but some detect them very soon and if these people - mostly scientists - get more recommandations all errors will be repaired - see OZON level or bad air systems in last decades.
The climatic errors mad by too much CO2 are detected but the dimension is so great. Till whole humanity reacts we need some years more to this self destroying error.
Yes I agree; based on a systematic point of view. Humans and nature are in constant interactions. Human activities in view of development and industrial revolution may have caused inbalances in the biosphere, however, recent developmental efforts have focused on sustainble development and restoration plan which is an advantage with respect to nature.
@Naveen: But you will agree that human are the main culprit in whatever destruction of nature in the name of development we are witnessing. Rest can be attributed to natural.
@Palas: But its Human component which has the power to manipulate so you need to be worried. Balancing act of nature as you are saying is the only hope though.
@Nabeel: But whats Bad Human? Bad in the sense of destroying Nature ! Friendly to Nature ! time is not with us to wait for Bad to turn Frirendly. Is not it?
@Subrata Chakraborty -> Yes I agree.
I have conflicting opinion inside myself. First of all I really feel very deep pain when on the name of development we mercilessly destroy the nature. Yes…we destroy it…I may take shelter of some words like disturbing the equilibrium etc…but it does’t hide the reality and the true greedy face of human.
But at the same time the question comes to my mind….is human greed not making a situation where the whole humanity will wipe out in fraction of a second. Are we culprit of nature’s destruction or we are preparing a ground for our self-destruction? I really don’t know. By taming a few drops we are behaving like we can swallow the whole ocean. Isn’t our behavior childish? Ocean (nature) would be laughing at this child (human).
We are here because nature decided so and we should not forget that we are not beyond her. Each one of us will be equally responsible for that dooms day when nature will remind us the same through her own ways.
Regards
There is symbiotic relationship between nature and human being,but excessive activities of human being tend to infringe on nature. Nature and human compliment each other.
Naveen says: "Each one of us will be equally responsible for that dooms day when nature will remind us the same through her own ways."
Well, I do not think that each one of us is equally responsible. Some people are more aggressive than others; they usually seize power in society (economic, administrative, and cultural), and they impose their will (values, aims) to the rest of the society. I do not love ruthless capitalism and voracious consumerism, but they have prevailed and they have been imposed to the entire world.
Anyway, the natural world would surely live (flourish) better without people. But people are here. The question is how long will they manage to stay here with such behaviour.
All this is so. But then to whom and why is nature needed, even if beautiful? But also the nature of man himself must be greatly improved. How? See the article “Dozy-chaos end of the human civilization”, JUSPS-B Vol. 29(4), 87-96 (2017) (http://dx.doi.org/10.22147/jusps-B/290402). You must not absolutize everything. It is necessary to seek an exact balance. We should not be too fond of ourselves. But also we should not be too fond of nature. In the final analysis, we are a part of nature, with all the huge flaws, its best part.
The first close of the following quote is important in considering the question posed here.
"But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself." — Rachel Carson
Human being is surely destroying part of nature these years. However, considering nature without human being is meaningless.
Nature will safer without human being. Do you agree?
Agree nature will be safer without inconsiderate people that abuse / destroy the natural environment. Both human beings & nature are destined living together & hence we need to live hand in hand. Beside continuing to preserve the nature, we also need to educate or penalize those that abusing / destroying the nature.
@Mario Radovan...dear sir…I know there are people out there who are working very hard to keep the nature in its natural form…also everyone is not taking from the nature equally… Each one of us definitely have some share in nature but not everyone respects that boundary.
But what I wrote is based on my personal experience…I live in north Indian state Uttarakhand of India…in June 2013 this state received heavy rainfall and multiday cloudburst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_North_India_floods)…It was the first time I saw a natural disaster of this degree…It did not forgive anyone that came in its way…not even to kids and animals…I agree with you that some people are more aggressive than others (in exploiting the nature)…But now for a second see from the eyes of nature…does it punish to those only who destroy it more (which should be the way as per normal human understanding)…or it counts everyone equally responsible?...Don’t you think nature’s understanding is quite different than us (and beyond our logics also)?
Regards
Human beings depend on Flora and Fauna, but they (Flora and Fauna) don't depend on humans for their living. The importance of species, ecosystems, and ecological processes matter to human survival. Species are the fundamental building blocks of the earth's ecosystems that provide pure water, renewed soils, food, energy, and clean air. Diverse and healthy ecosystems increase resilience in the face of inevitable change and are necessary for human survival and well-being. In addition to these practical considerations, there are also aesthetic and ethical reasons why we should preserve the ability of future generations to improve and enrich their lives.
https://www.macfound.org/press/publications/global-conservation-balancing-nature-and-human-needs/
@Abdul: Yes you are right to ask what we do with a nature without human being. But this is where we are leading our self to is not it?
@Tatsuo: Yes nature without human is meaningless to we human. But there are other who disappeared from the earth even before human appeared. nature is more than just human. I may be wrong though.
I think we can manage some part of Nature better and we can (and we do) destroy it too... where we destroy nature, we also try to preserve it.
Nature has lived before human beings and it can still live without us... May be, it can live better.....
"However, considering nature without human being is meaningless."
Ah, we love ourselves slightly too much! There are many nice animals around, which would live much better without people.
Anyway, nature (or Nature) is an imprecise concept. It includes diseases, floods, and other things that destroy life. People have done many good thing that protect life. The problem is that people have been destroying more of the natural world (and life) than they protect it in modern age.
@Subrata Chakraborty: You're quite right to say, "There were other beings that had disappeared from the earth before humans appeared. Nature is more than just the human being." However, the proposition in your question seems to be the words referring to the limited era in which the human being is present.
I feel, Nature is powerful than Humans. So, humans are safer if nature is not disturbed much.
Nature is Omni Present & how it is possible that nature can remain safer without human being . Nature rest in plants trees,flowers ,rivers, sea, ocean, & such other creation of Creator . For preserving the said gifts of nature to the human beings , human beings have to protect & also to take care of such natural gifts .
Nature has a wide horizon covering the entire universe as we know universe consist of 5 basic elements which remain the part & parcel for every human beings as the preservation of human beings are getting control by 5 major elements . In this line it is very clear that human beings cannot afford to avoid the nature.
This is my personal opinion
The nature and human compliment one another so the question of one been safer without the other insignificance.
Yes, the human affects through the over-cutting of trees and the dredging of forests ,and overfishing as well as industrial pollutants and many others.
@Peter: May be as you said a Insignificant question, but its a significant reality waiting us....
No - for it makes the mistake of placing humans outside of nature. We are by no means the first species or the only species to have managed to destroy its habitat to the point where they have become extinct or if not extinct close to it.
It is true that we are, by our activities, generating extinctions of plants and animals. But the geological record has a great number of significant extinctions - it does seem as if nature needs to hit the reset button now and then.
Only human beings need to protect themselves from, other animals and insects, like avoiding outdoor activities when animals and insects are most active; reduces risk of exposure and protection from them.
https://www.thespruce.com/safe-mosquito-and-fly-repellent-for-pets-3385246
@John: Can we put human as a species in the same bracket with others species? True human is a part of the nature but sadly the only species which engaged in degrading it like no others species can! My question was not inhuman just a opinion seeking exercise. Thanks
@Subrata Chakraborty Part of the challenge is asking the right questions - Thus Jeremy Baskin Paradigm dressed as Epoch: The Ideology of the Anthropocene argues that instead of calling the current period the Anthropocene we should be calling it the Eocine. My response was more about the politics of language - for those who resist the idea that we are effectively destroying our habitat there is a simple response: Nature bats last.
Can we imagine earth without life!! Highly impossible. Creation gave life to human race gradually. As said by RG friends it is very difficult to imagine nature human-less, probably at the stage/phase of annihilation, it may be possible to see without human. I say as long as we move towards the hi-fi technology there is always side effects. Only thing we have to take proper care.
Dear friends. Let me disagree with you. I do not think that nature will be safer. Perhaps it makes sense to clarify the matter. Is it safer for whom and / or for what?
I agree. However, people who appreciate and respect nature do not destroy it. All we have to do is educate people from a young age to respect nature.
It all depends on what we mean by Nature. If nature is our universe together with us, then ... the influence of man on the universe is negligible. If we say that nature is our planet Earth, then I am ready to partially agree.
Yubratka,
we have to say that to our youth too. The young people shall learn to respect nature, they shouldn't get human natives like Aborigines or some people living in Amazonas valley.
We shouldn't want to get back to woods - we should learn nature as system and respect it's dimensions in time and size.
I disagree, nature is much stronger than we think. Man is too insignificant, even with modern technology to influence nature. It is eternal. There is some kind of cyclicality in the behavior of nature. Cyclicity that we still do not understand. That is why we think / or manipulate us to think / that our behavior is detrimental to the world around us.
However, we must live in such a way that we do not harm the inferiority. But we should not abuse the idea of "not damaging". All extremes are dangerous.
The most powerful 21st-century technologies – robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech – are threatening to create humans an endangered species.
Nature without human beings would be as a garden without flowers. The man is the visible master fact of God.
Human beings are a part of nature, but we have developed cultural adaptations that adversely affect nature. Human beings can act in ways to change nature, i.e. climate change from industrialization. At present, our task is to understand the enigma of cultural power--it can be used constructively and destructively. Choices are currently being led by financial greed and not human wisdom. This lesson will be very expensive.
@Herbert:Human should rise above all practices and start worshiping mother nature like our predecessors in distant past used to do. Time is not for taming the Nature by appeasing it or else writing is on the wall whether one can see it or not.
The success of sustainable development in the time requires a Social and Ecological Contract among human beings and our Mother Earth which brings together and builds upon the progress made in the nature of the world
The nature and human co-exist as to compliment each other so the existence of one without the other will amount to zero.
@Peter: Nature was there before Human and will be here after Human.
@Subrata: Nature is. Human's are a part of nature but we add new forces in nature from tools that we create from nature.
Humans use huge stress on the natural world. Habitats and species experience not merely from environmental changes caused by industry and technology, except as well from the strain caused by the world’s massive human population and is increasing quickly.
Since humans are part of nature , we must learn to strike balance of human activities and other natural environment for sustainability.
Nature came up with a human so as not to be bored. But, perhaps, when nature becomes bored, nature will give up pampering their toy ... :)
МК
over exploitation and pollution have affected the environment negatively greater than the last few centuries
Humans have exceeds the safe threshold within earth system. phosphorous and nitrogen cause great damage to freshwater resources. However, phosphorous and nitrogen affects the carbon cycle.
There are about nine global procedures that support life on Earth, four have gone beyond “safe” stagse: human-driven climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land system change, and the high level of phosphorus and nitrogen flowing into the oceans because of fertilizer
Microbiological pollution in water includes bacteria, viruses and protozoans, which are generally linked with human or animal faeces
The basis of microbiological pollution is frequently insufficiently treated human sewage or runoff from animal husbandry facilities into streams or lakes. as well, a number of microbial populations be able to raise in drinking water distribution systems. additional factors could as well influence microbial levels as: (a) wild animals are a reservoir for bacteria or protozoa that be able to contaminate humans; (b) algal blooms could enlarge bacterial abundance and (c) differences in turbidity or water chemistry may influence bacterial densities
The human civilization has increased and grew in the past 10,000 years — an epoch recognized as the Holocene- under comparatively steady environmental situation. It is not easy to know what will occur to civilization if planetary situation carry on altering. Other than the scientists write that the planet “is probable to be a lot less hospitable to the development of human societies.”
Humans are “eating away at our own life support systems” at a rate unseen in the past 10,000 years by degrading land and freshwater systems, emitting greenhouse gases and releasing vast amounts of agricultural chemicals into the environment, new research has found.
A World Without Humans,The Aftermath Of Mankind Leaving This Planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vizevcJWmcE
No Trees... No Humans.
Have you ever wondered what a world without trees would look like? Close your eyes, and try to imagine a desolate Earth. There'd be no more paper, and everyone would have to resort to technological use---that is, if anyone was left.Trees are a crucial factor to our existence not only because they produce paper, lumber and chewing gum, but because they serve an important role in the carbon cycle. And because of our ever-increasing population of 6.7 billion, that seemingly distant future is nearing each and every day. People have proposed many solutions to this environmental issue called deforestation, including either shipping everyone to the Moon or...to just stop cutting trees!
Even if our species survived the devastation of deforestation, life as we know it would be very different from now in 2011, where only half of the world's forests are gone. Scientists speculate our great-grandchildren might not even have the chance to visit the great Amazon rainforest in 50 years! Yet on such a dry, lifeless world, no one would be left to experience the disastrous consequences of deforestation. Little tribulations like the decrease of property value and potential increase of urban noise become irrelevant compared to other calamities like roadside spills, animal wastes, water runoff into streams, and sewage/farm chemicals left unfiltered. For now, let's find out the local and global effects of deforestation:
FILTHY AIR: Without trees, humans would not be able survive because the air would be unsuitable for breathing. If anything, people would have to develop gas masks that filter the little oxygen that would be left in the air. Trees are a crucial part of the carbon cycle, a global process in which carbon dioxide constantly circulates through the atmosphere into organism and back again. Carbon is the second most valuable element to life, you know, after water. Anyway, trees take carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis in order to make energy. This carbon is then either transferred into oxygen and released into the air by respiration or is stored inside the trees until they decompose into the soil. Therefore, the absence of trees would result in significantly HIGHER amounts of carbon dioxide in the air and LOWER amounts of oxygen! The filthy air would also be full of airborne particles and pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide and its temperature may increase by up to 12 F.
LIFELESS SOIL: If the air hadn't already wiped out everybody, the next disastrous consequence of deforestation is its damaging effect on soil. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, 2.5 billion people depend on agriculture for their livelihood. If deforestation get its way, those people won't be the only ones affected. The soil would become full of dangerous chemicals and pollutants that are usually filtered by trees. In addition, soil erosion is currently prevented by trees because they protect the land. However, soil would be unprotected, and vulnerable to reduction in soil quality and top soil nutrients. Soil erosion would become more prevalent, and eventually all the soil will lose its arability and agriculture will fall...leaving us people to starve.
CHRONIC DROUGHT: Arid conditions will surface not only because of dangerous unfiltered substances, but also because at one point it will rarely rain. Sounds crazy, right? During the "dry season," trees regulate and anchor the dirt by releasing water. Deforested areas, however, are liable to chronic droughts that obstruct river navigation, disrupt industrial operations and kill crop production all together.Storm water runoff (if it rains) not reduced, but increased which'll contribute to small floods and topsoil erosion. Furthermore, trees add humidity into the air through transpiration---but the lack of trees results in the lack of moisture in the air.
NO TREE-BASED PRODUCTS: Of course, if there aren't trees, there won't be any products you can get from them. We use and waste paper everyday without realizing we're helping to kill four billion trees cut down every year. Due to global deforestation, there'd be no paper, baseball bats, barrels, books, blocks, benches, crutches, coffee filters, guitars, grocery bags, pencils, pine oil, beds, billboards, buttons, fuelwood, charcoal, industrial roundwood, candy wrappers,chewing gum, cork, crayons, spices, egg cartons, kites, linoleum, luggage, paper, pingpong balls, wooden chopsticks, rubber, tambourines, telephone books, tires, bark, fiber, dyes, incense, latexes, oils, resins, shellac, tanning compounds, waxes, toilet paper, turpentine, xylophones or wooden yo-yos. Food harvested from trees like fruits, nuts, berries (and maple syrup) would be nonexistent as well. Other causes of deforestation today include agricultural expansion, infrastructure expansion, conversion to cropland/pasture and the construction of roads. Moreover, countries are forced to increase the rate of forest loss by population pressures, profits, and internal social/political influences.
WATER WARS: And at one point in the future, the level of freshwater resources available will become as scarce. There are already many debates over whether we currently abuse non-renewable resources, but the most important of these resources is probably freshwater. Freshwater is the basis of human survival, and agricultural/industrial operations. Future politicians are going to have to make ground-breaking decisions on how to preserve enough freshwater resources for their country, and one option would be to wage war against others---to the death.
Image Credit: Deforestation, a collage of NatGeo photos by adriansalamandre (via Flickr)
References:
1. Rhett A. Butler, "Global Consequences of Deforestation in the Tropics ."
2. University of Michigan, "Global Deforestation."
3. NASA Earth Observatory, "Causes of Deforestation"
The World Without Us is a non-fiction book about what would happen to the natural and built environment if humans suddenly disappeared, written by American journalist Alan Weisman and published by St. Martin's Thomas Dunne Books.[1] It is a book-length expansion of Weisman's own February 2005 Discover article "Earth Without People".[2]Written largely as a thought experiment, it outlines, for example, how cities and houses would deteriorate, how long man-made artifacts would last, and how remaining lifeforms would evolve. Weisman concludes that residential neighborhoods would become forests within 500 years, and that radioactive waste, bronze statues, plastics, and Mount Rushmore would be among the longest-lasting evidence of human presence on Earth.
The author of four previous books and numerous articles for magazines, Weisman traveled to interview academics, scientists and other authorities. He used quotations from these interviews to explain the effects of the natural environment and to substantiate predictions. The book has been translated and published in many countries. It was successful in the U.S., reaching #6 on the New York Times Best Seller list[3] and #1 on the San Francisco Chronicle Best-Sellers list in September 2007.[4] It ranked #1 on Time[5] and Entertainment Weekly's top 10 non-fiction books of 2007.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us)
I agree... good resource. "Radioactive waste...would be among the longest-lasting evidence...". Maybe Is it good?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_adequate_model_of_the_price_forecast_in_the_system_the_duration_of_the_life_cycle_of_elements_in_which_hundreds_of_thousands_of_years?_tpcectx=profile_questions
Is not everything that surrounds us and what we use is not formed from radioactive waste? :)
Uranium used for nuclear fission to create the Atomic bomb came mostly from the Belgian Congo. Since the age of nuclear waste, many people ignore soil testing when planting foods, gardening, etc. Colorado has a lot of contamination due to uranium enrichment and nuclear development.
No nature will not safe with out human being because some maintenance has required for that nature needs human being
@Rao: Non intervention not maintenance of the nature is the need.Nature can take care of itself provided human keep distance and stop destruction in the name of development
Nature should be protected . Relational and rules should design for the purpose keeping the nature in good order
Human being has been part of the Nature therefore without human being there is no meanig nand hence I will not agree. At the same time human activities must control to save the nature
You may not but its true that witout Human intervention Nature wiil thirve and take care of ittselfh
All the animals and their observable world in all terrains of our earth will definitely be safe and happy, when there is no single intelligent and dominating animal-"Human"
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics