Men aren't compatible with Earth's ecosystems because they destroyed wildlife?

[Tyrannoraptor]

If mankind were directly responsible for the extinction (esp. an unnatural one) of wildlife (esp. modern day animals), could this possibly be the reason why humans are not compatible with the Earth's ecosystems?

[Ragged Maw]

Hard to say. We're a "peculiar" case among the more successful species to draw breath. We have the itch to build our own "worlds" (environment and climate included) which seems more characteristic of hive insects (eg. termites, bees, etc.) than mammals, overall. And even then, we're nowhere near as coordinated as them.

[Tendrin]

If mankind were directly responsible for the extinction (esp. an unnatural one) of wildlife (esp. modern day animals), could this possibly be the reason why humans are not compatible with the Earth's ecosystems?

I know a lot of indigenous cultures that would disagree with your position.

[A Small Talent For War]

I know a lot of indigenous cultures that would disagree with your position.

It is interesting to look at the first humans in Australia and their impact on species.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160...ian-wilderness

It's not just humans that can cause extinctions, however. Several species have supplanted others over time. There used to be lemurs all over Africa, but the evolution of monkeys on the continent eventually led to their extinction there so that now lemurs are only found on Madagascar which broke off from the mainland before the appearance of monkeys.

Natural extinctions - those that arise as part of the biological progression of evolution rather than some external catastrophe - are common, and - unless someone can prove that humans actually came from another planet - we are a natural part of that ecosystem. There is no "plan" for an ecosystem, though. Nature does not have any empirical objective or guiding principle. It dumbly follows the material capabilities of any particular situation to natural and continuous outcomes. Whether the world is a barren rock nearly devoid of life or flourishing with many different kinds of lifeforms doesn't matter to the ecosystem. It only matters to the people on the planet.

So it would be ironic if the only thing in the ecosystem that knows that there is an ecosystem (and what that means) would not be compatible with it.

[Kirby101]

I agree with Agent Smith

[Jim Kelly]

Viruses are the virus. According to science, they either were here first and then cellular life evolved from that or they were once small cells that became parasites of larger cells or they were bits of deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid that broke off from genes of larger organisms. Whichever the origin, it's clear viruses have been around since the early development of life on Earth and have always played a part in evolution of more complex organisms.

Empirically, there's no bad or good development. Molecular structures affecting other molecular structures is in the nature of things. The universe seems driven toward greater and greater complexity, yet also toward greater and greater simplicity. Things fall apart. Humans might be the instrument for introducing greater complexity to the enviroment or they might serve to deconstruct existing molecular structures. Eventually, entropy wins out.

[batnbreakfast]

If mankind were directly responsible for the extinction (esp. an unnatural one) of wildlife (esp. modern day animals), could this possibly be the reason why humans are not compatible with the Earth's ecosystems?

Are you bored with ghosts already?

[jb681131]

If mankind were directly responsible for the extinction (esp. an unnatural one) of wildlife (esp. modern day animals), could this possibly be the reason why humans are not compatible with the Earth's ecosystems?

No.

Humans have been on this earth more than 200 thousand years. So Human and wildlife are not incompatible.

You also have to know that Earth as cycle of cold and hot, with Ice-age then Hot-age then again. There has been 3 or 4 of those cycles. And at each peaks most or earth's spieces (animals and plants) disapear. But after each peaks, earth's wildlife comes back again with new spieces. And Humans are not ment to survive in very extreme temperatures. So Humans are bound to disapear at the next peak. We are just accelerating our own disapearance.

Or, Humans can find a tech that might help us survive. But, with the fast global warming, we might disapear before finding a solution.

[Jim Kelly]

Humans have been lucky enough to have developed science that tells them what they're doing wrong and how to change this behaviour. Humans haven't made the change to save themselves yet--and maybe it's too late--but at least we know we're killing ourselves and our environment.

What happens to the environment if humans are wiped out? Have we created an ecosystem that will destroy itself, even without human intervention? Or will the Earth be able to recover from the damage and create new life in the future?

I guess we'll never know.

[Tyrannoraptor]

It is interesting to look at the first humans in Australia and their impact on species.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160...ian-wilderness

It's not just humans that can cause extinctions, however. Several species have supplanted others over time. There used to be lemurs all over Africa, but the evolution of monkeys on the continent eventually led to their extinction there so that now lemurs are only found on Madagascar which broke off from the mainland before the appearance of monkeys.

Natural extinctions - those that arise as part of the biological progression of evolution rather than some external catastrophe - are common, and - unless someone can prove that humans actually came from another planet - we are a natural part of that ecosystem. There is no "plan" for an ecosystem, though. Nature does not have any empirical objective or guiding principle. It dumbly follows the material capabilities of any particular situation to natural and continuous outcomes. Whether the world is a barren rock nearly devoid of life or flourishing with many different kinds of lifeforms doesn't matter to the ecosystem. It only matters to the people on the planet.

So it would be ironic if the only thing in the ecosystem that knows that there is an ecosystem (and what that means) would not be compatible with it.

But what if the extinction of wildlife is due to global warming, climate change or even pollutants & deforestation?

[Starter Set]

We are just one more element of the planet ecosystem. Maybe not the nicest but we aren't as bad as volcano can be. (and have been, causing the most devastating extinctions)

One of the reasons why i think ecology is poorly presented by the way. We aren't trying to save the Earth. It doesn't need saving, it has survived way worst and still will be there long after us.

What we are trying to actually save is us.

[Ragged Maw]

We are just one more element of the planet ecosystem. Maybe not the nicest but we aren't as bad as volcano can be. (and have been, causing the most devastating extinctions)

One of the reasons why i think ecology is poorly presented by the way. We aren't trying to save the Earth. It doesn't need saving, it has survived way worst and still will be there long after us.

What we are trying to actually save is us.

Eloquently put.

[A Small Talent For War]

We are just one more element of the planet ecosystem. Maybe not the nicest but we aren't as bad as volcano can be. (and have been, causing the most devastating extinctions)

One of the reasons why i think ecology is poorly presented by the way. We aren't trying to save the Earth. It doesn't need saving, it has survived way worst and still will be there long after us.

What we are trying to actually save is us.

I think we have to acknowledge that we are considerably different from other animals in the ecosystem so it may be more that we are as separate as an animal can be in any environment and that we possess many traits that are not in contradiction to those of other animals. However, many of these traits are what drive compatibility with the ecosystem. We're the only animal that actively tries to save other species, for example.

In the end, though, I think a lot of humans would like to be completely independent of the demands and conditions of the eco-system. Most of us live in a generally artificial world. Even in the rural countryside, most of the vegetation is the result of human management. The closer you get to a city, the majority of trees and plants were put there by people and the fauna is maintained by the city's park services. It's not easy to find true wilderness areas in developed countries anymore.

It's easy to get the sense that there is a drive in the human race to leave the planet. With climate change and other catastrophic natural phenomena as well as the increasing population, I think it is inevitable that there will be a drive toward terraforming technologies as well as increased pressure to perfect human space exploration. We're going to have to figure out how to make unlivable places on Earth livable again and then, when we can do that, we'll be able to take that technology to places that are not on Earth.

[Jim Kelly]

For a long time, it was thought that humans are distinctly different from other animals, and there were characteristics in humanity that didn't exist in other species. Yet now science keeps finding those characteristics do exist in other species--so the old reasons why humans should be considered different from other animals don't hold up.

[MyriVerse]

Mankind is every bit a part of Earth's ecosystem just as everything else is. It's just that all of our actions aren't.