What good have humans done?

[Revan]

hmmm... I sat here... reading the Altruism thread... and there are loads of people thinking that it exists... and to them I ask... what good have humans done on this planet? Honestly, the way I see it, we've brought ruin to much of it, we've brought thieves, rapists, murderers and plenty of other distasteful things... so I ask... What good have humans done to this planet? On the large scale of things, what have we done to effect those that'll live on this planet in the future?

[Avatar]

In terms of what we've done to effect future generations, I can't think of very many positive things.

Afterall, there are just too many things we've messed up so badly that it'll take the effort of generations to correct.

On the eternal other hand though, perhaps what we do now is laying the foundations from which our children can build.

Look at the amazing advances in technology, medicine, and even philosophy, sociology and psychology that have occurred even in our brief life-times. Every decision that is made with the freedom of individuals in mind is a positive step into our future.

We are living in a time that will, to a large extent, shape the future in ways that we may not yet be able to comprehend. It is up to us to take advantage of it.

--Avatar

[Revan]

In terms of what we've done to effect future generations, I can't think of very many positive things.

Afterall, there are just too many things we've messed up so badly that it'll take the effort of generations to correct.

On the eternal other hand though, perhaps what we do now is laying the foundations from which our children can build.

Look at the amazing advances in technology, medicine, and even philosophy, sociology and psychology that have occurred even in our brief life-times. Every decision that is made with the freedom of individuals in mind is a positive step into our future.

We are living in a time that will, to a large extent, shape the future in ways that we may not yet be able to comprehend. It is up to us to take advantage of it.

--Avatar

*rubs has in delight* I do love reading your thoughts on such things Avatar!

Yeah, I totally agree we've done amazing things with technology, medicine...etc... But we've destroyed much of the Earth... And will continue to destroy it... When will we learn? Does half the species have to die to teach us a lesson that we should take care of ourselves, and others around us, instead of beong selfish all the time?

technology... agreed... it does us much good... but look at it in another way... it also does us much bad... such things as Global warming woudn't, couldn't happen if technology weren't here to be the cause of these things... Like bombs... would you consider that a great advance in technology? I would... but seriously, what good can it do us?

[Avatar]

...When will we learn? Does half the species have to die to teach us a lesson that we should take care of ourselves, and others around us, instead of beong selfish all the time?

Probably. And I think your estimate of half the population is unusually optimistic for you. I would guess 85-90% in order for the lesson to really sink in. And even then it'll probably only last until we rebuild.

technology... agreed... it does us much good... but look at it in another way... it also does us much bad... such things as Global warming woudn't, couldn't happen if technology weren't here to be the cause of these things... Like bombs... would you consider that a great advance in technology? I would... but seriously, what good can it do us?

Technology is one of the best, and worst aspects of our development. I've often thought that we regress emotionally/spiritually in direct correlation to our technological advances. Things are becoming obsolete before we ever learn to use them effectively. It causes many, if not most, of the problems we face, and yet it may present the only solutions to those problems.

Our greatest difficulty lies in striking a balance between technology, and what, for want of a better word, could be called the "soul".

As you indirectly point out, the majority of our problems have been caused in the last hundred years or so, as technology continues its inexorable advance. Unfortunately for us, and our children, greed still seems to be the defining characteristic of our species. In this sense, while altruism may exist in individuals, it is scarcely apparent in the approach of the masses (government?) to the world.

--Avatar

[variol son]

Sadly, I think that the greatest things humans have done have generally involved fixing things that other humans messed up. The heroes of my generation will probably be the ones who do something about the problems created by my father and grandfather's generations, while the great errors of those my age will be remedied by the heroes of mid-next century.

Not that I think this lessens the great things people have done. It's just a sad fact that adds to the mix.

Sum sui generis
Vs

[Avatar]

Very true, and an excellent observation.

Without the mistakes of our fathers and grandfathers, we might have nothing to fix.

But I worry that the scale of such errors is becoming greater and greater. We can fix the fact that old legislation is limiting, or downright unjust, without much problem, but it's a lot harder to regrow the rainforests.

That said, there will never be a time when our race is without problems. It's part of what makes us human. The challenge is to solve them in the correct way.

I hope that expediency will become a thing of the past, but the change that is required for that to be true is a far more fundamental one than we may realise.

I mean, we're talking about changing the mindset of humanity here, not just cleaning up the messes we leave behind us.

--Avatar

[I'm Murrin]

In terms of the whole world, we haven't done anything goof for it, except perhaps to change other things we ourselves did. All the good we have done is mostly towards our own species. Technology and nature tend unfortunately to be incompatible, since a large part of the purpose of technological advancement is to alter natural processes to make it better for us.

[variol son]

And yet without technology, we would never have done anything particularly "good" for anyone, since the idea of nature is for everything to live in balance, not for one species to make things "better" for all others.

Sum sui generis
Vs

[Avatar]

Agreed, and, as I said, therein lies our problem. Maintaining, or creating, some form of balance.

Unfortunately, that genetic imperative that someone mentioned in a different thread leads us into disharmony. We alone of all the inhabitants of the earth, have reached a point where the natural balance can be ignored, at least temporarily, as Murrin said, because of our technology.

We have inevitably upset the natural order of things in our apparent favour, and it was not until recently (the last 50 years or so) that we have realised the perhaps irreparable damage that we are wreaking.

As always though, the realisation and the actual repair have a wide, and perhaps insurmountable gap between them, and it is in that gap that the fundamental changes I spoke (wrote?) of must occur. Until then, we may be doomed.

The epitaph of every past civilisation could be:
"We thought We were here forever. We were wrong."

--Avatar

[duchess of malfi]

Actualy it is a part of nature for species to get out of balance (usually from overpopulation), and those species usually have a great die-off at some point in time. It's part of nature's cycles.

Take rabbits or other prey species. Perhaps there will be an ideal year for them, and they will breed like mad. Their predator species (like foxes) will in turn have plenty to eat, and also breed like mad. But all good things come to an end, and eventually, when normal conditions return, there will be a lot of death and starvation among the populations which exploded.

So, since we have plenty to eat (or at least enough to eat) in many parts of the world, we have had a very natural and normal population explosion, just like any other animal.

And as for our accomplishments -- perhaps none of you see value in them, but I would point you to the nearest art museum or symphony orchestra.

[Baradakas]

duchess said:

And as for our accomplishments -- perhaps none of you see value in them, but I would point you to the nearest art museum or symphony orchestra.

Nicely said duchess.

[Gart]

I tend to think that it's overpopulation, rather than technology, that's the cause of our problems - it's less what we can do, and more how much and how many of us want to do it, if you see what I mean. Case in point: The recent oil price hikes, caused in part by the explosive growth in demand from China. The Chinese want to live like we do, and who are we to tell them that they can't? Or the rest of the world either?
I'm afraid that we are due for a massive die-off at some point in the not too distant future, whether it be by disease or as a consequence of the major collapse that will happen when the oil runs out.

On the other hand, while it's true that we haven't done the planet any favours, without us (as the only known sentient species) there would be no art, music, literature, or architecture, as Duchess said. And these things have value, if only to us; and as there is only us, who else can judge?

[danlo]

We have created the Watch and the Watch will save the world!

[sindatur]

To address the initial question, What have done Good for the planet? Absolutely nothing, and how could we possibly hope to do anything good for the planet. The planet is a product of nature, you can't improve something Nature made.

Sure we can fix things we've broken, but, we broke them, so, fixing what we've broken, doesn't count as doing something for the planet.

Sure, we've had technological and artistic advances, but those are for us, not for the planet. We can't possibly hope to do anything for the planet itself, other than repairing any damage we may do. All we can do, for the good of the planet, is to not break things, or to fix things we break, as quickly as possible.

[variol son]

Does that mean duchess that we can expect to see a mass culling of human beings to bring nature back into balance?

Sum sui generis
Vs

[duchess of malfi]

It's already happening, VS, with the AIDS epidemic in sub-Sahara Africa. Right now it looks like nearly a generation will be lost in some nations.

And with our population destiny in some parts of the world, I do not even want to think of how many will die in some areas if there is another influenza outbreak like the one in the WW1 years.

[Avatar]

Unfortunately, as you said, it is part of the cycle of nature. However, unlike the foxes, who will starve if they over-reach their food supply, or the rats, who have natural predators to keep their numbers in check, humans are, theoretically, at the apex of the "food chain".

Not only do we have no natural predators, but we spend huge amounts of time, money and effort in order to cure the only check on our numbers that there can be: disease.

I agree with Gart that our main problems stem from over-population. That is what has provided the drive for things like technology.

Temporary stop-gaps to our expansion could be global pandemics, another world war, or mass starvation, not just of the underdeveloped countries, but of the world.

Callous as it may seem, our best chance does lie in the reduction of our population. The world population doubles every 35 years or so, and it's not as though we've got anywhere else to go at the moment. Land is a finite resource.

--Avatar

P.S.
It is estimated that by 2015, my own country will have lost five million people to AIDS.
--A

[Revan]

It's already happening, VS, with the AIDS epidemic in sub-Sahara Africa. Right now it looks like nearly a generation will be lost in some nations.

But if it weren't for us humans, we wouldn't need an AIDS epidemic anyways... There in lies our problem, whatever problems are wrong with us, are always caused, directly or indirectly, by ourselves. We're our own worst enemy. It's a never ending cycle... Tus humanity is doomed to live like this forever.

wow, who'd have thought I could create a topic with a real discussion; I'm on a roll

[Avatar]

Not forever; only until we fix it, or wipe ourselves out, or are wiped out, or the sun burns out (about 3 billion years from now), assuming we're still living here.

Of course we create our own problems, and we are are own enemy. There's nothing else that we've encountered so far that is able to pose a significant threat to us, so we have to provide it ourselves.

There is no easy answer, except for "culling" part of our population. And at the moment, nature is, in a sense, carrying out this neccessary function.

However, we are doing our best to oppose it, by increasing life spans through medical technology, by preventing genocide, by increasing our diagnostic, preventative and survival chances in the face of natural disasters etc.

(All good things, and ultimately to be desired, but essentially interfering with the most important biological commandment of all: "The strong shall live".)

As was discussed elsewhere, by doing so we sow the seeds of our own problems. Does this mean we should "let nature take its course" and live with the consequences? Perhaps not. But are we prepared for the eventual consequences of our interference?

--Avatar

[Revan]

However, we are doing our best to oppose it, by increasing life spans through medical technology, by preventing genocide, by increasing our diagnostic, preventative and survival chances in the face of natural disasters etc.

But this again has it's drawback. You increase the lifespan of a race, then it will become even more overpopulated... so populated that we won't have the resources to counter the problem...

Nature has provided us with life... and what have we done in return; what are we doing in return? Destroying it.