Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Confirmed by science: our species is doomed. [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)32. Their niche was not at all empty.
There's plenty of other predators for that niche. For example, any of the large cats would fit nicely.
Humans started out as prey, food, or just barely more than large ground squirrels
So did dogs. And all other mammals. Yet this is apparently only a problem in your mind for humans.
-or- do you believe that the earth is a resource for the use of humans ? To do with as we please, alter as we see fit, destroy because we have ability ?
Yes, there's only two possible choices. 1) Incinerate everything or 2) slaughter humanity.
The only purpose for creature on Earth is to reproduce. Doesn't matter if you're talking about humans or dogs. Or snails. Or algae. Or bacteria. Each of those has a different strategy to achieve their reproduction, but that's all they are really going for.
"Natural" is not necessarily the pinnacle of good. "Natural" is just the result of chance played out over a very long time. Attaching nobility to "natural", as you do here, is an artificial construct. Just like attaching nobility to "job creators" or anything else - nobility itself is an artificial construct.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I came to this conclusion about a year ago. This when I realized it's pretty pointless.
Katashi_itto
Apr 2014
#1
An evolutionary leap, in a positive direction of course, would be the only thing that might save us.
MoonRiver
Apr 2014
#3
Not necessarily - other animals can adapt as well - cockroachs for example will do just fine
el_bryanto
Apr 2014
#5
Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth.
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#11
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#12
Don't think I have ever done an emoticon. Maybe I have, just don't remember.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#30
That's sweet. Always happy when I can make someone smile. Have a great day. nt.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#47
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#55
By your rationale, then to hell with other life species, we will determine what is "natural".
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#35
You can't separate concepts like "benefit" or "purpose" from your human perspective.
Silent3
Apr 2014
#72
Humans only need technology and "food distribution systems" to live in large numbers...
Silent3
Apr 2014
#70
An estimated 99% of species have gone extinct -- why would humans be different?
FarCenter
Apr 2014
#46
Darwin's theory doesn't have a built in guarantee for long term human survival.
GoneFishin
Apr 2014
#77