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

[A Small Talent For War]

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.

The essential difference is that animals strive to be bored all day while humans have to strive to endure boredom.

In reality, though, it is a matter of degree. Some non-hominid species can be taught basic math, but no other animal could ever understand the mathematics of something like Relativity much less conceive of it. In speech, there is some intense complexity that is hard or impossible to find in other animals. For example, meerkats and many birds can make very distinct sounds based on threats. Essentially saying something like "there is a cat over there" that communicates the type of threat and its location or direction.

However, a human can go a level above in this. If one person said, there is a lion over there, another person could say "Ronnie says that there is a lion over there" while other animals could only repeat the original sound or vocalization without applying the referential subject predicate piece of information.

Nevertheless, these are natural abilities humans are born with that hardly represent the distinct elements of human beings such as the various adaptive organizational developments that truly set humans apart from any other animal. Chimpanzees, for example, develop extremely complex social groups, but take ten chimpanzee strangers and put them in an enclosed space for an hour, and you'll end up with a room full of dead chimps. However, every day hundreds of strangers in every city on the planet board plane after plane for hours upon hours of flights with hardly any incident. The ability to repress natural aggressive impulses to that degree is not seen among even our closest surviving relatives.

[Celgress]

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.

Indeed, the whole notion of saving the Earth, or even the present ecosystem, is, bluntly put, silly, and born of Human arrogance. We always think we are the most important thing and essential to the planet or worse yet to the Universe. Earth will survive long after Humans are gone. The factor that will (likely) eventually destroy Earth is its Sun (when the Sun expands in an estimated five billion years or so), not us.

[Jim Kelly]

I often wonder what whales and dolphins think about. Probably things I don't have the brain capacity to understand.

[Zelena]

If I say that the men aren’t compatible with Earth’s ecosystems, what will it change? It’s not like we can change of ecosystems.
The story is not finished.
I must admit I’m pessimistic.

[Powerboy]

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?

Well, once you have intelligence and can manipulate you're environment, extend lifespans and population, problems arise. But, of course, humans are compatible with the eco-system. It spawned us.

[jb681131]

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.

Yes we know. Well not you, I see. But scientists do.
What damage have been done, at least with global warming, is not reversable.
But you know, global warning is a natural phenomenon. Human have just speeded it up.

[A Small Talent For War]

I often wonder what whales and dolphins think about. Probably things I don't have the brain capacity to understand.

It's a good question. They are obviously pretty complex intellectually and it is fascinating when they will actually come to humans for help (often with human things like nets and fishing hooks caught in their flesh or flippers).

Wittgenstein once said "if a lion could speak, we would not understand what he says." His point was that communication required a fairly comprehensive context for each participant and most of the communication is not logically defined but contingent on a very flimsy and often temporary context. Misunderstanding was so common and occurred so often between people who spoke the same language that real communication between two completely different animals existing in different environments must not be possible.

On the other hand though, it certainly seems like people and animals raised in the same environment have some consistent and reliable forms of communication, like Coco the Gorilla and her caretakers or even the simple, everyday situation with people and their dogs. In the case of dogs, it seems like they are able to understand their people better than other people in the same family.

Of course, that is one of the distinct traits and natural advantages of dogs - their ability to form bonds and rapport with non-dogs.

If I say that the men aren’t compatible with Earth’s ecosystems, what will it change? It’s not like we can change of ecosystems.

I'd prefer some better precision in the question as well. Recently, pythons have become a problem in Florida as too many pet pythons have been released into the wild. So, it would be accurate to say that pythons are an invader in the Florida eco-system, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't eventually be a part of it. Certainly, they are adapted for it. Pablo Escobar imported hippos onto his compound and after his death, they made their way into the South American jungles. Ecologists are now pretty sure that they will eventually be part of its ecosystem since, again, they are well adapted for it and there will be no way to eradicate them from it.

Mankind is the ultimate invader species, but the thing is that we tend to bring our ecosystem with us much like insects do - the man made world of farms, towns and cities. The question may really be are these expressions of the human species detrimental to all other ecosystems and are they unsustainable?
Still, it is nearly impossible to answer because of what we don't know that we don't even know. Around 1900, as urban populations rose precipitously, a major concern of city planners was coming up with schemes to remove horse manure from the city's streets. What they didn't realize - and could not predict - was that in just a few years horses would be replaced with cars, trolleys and trucks.

With over 7 billion people on the planet and the rise of computing and A.I., it is impossible to predict what might arise out of all that capacity for innovation that may make our current concerns completely irrelevant and, at the same time, replace them with entirely new challenges.

[Jim Kelly]

Yes we know. Well not you, I see. But scientists do.
What damage have been done, at least with global warming, is not reversable.
But you know, global warning is a natural phenomenon. Human have just speeded it up.

Yeah, I'm pretty stupid. I just meant that if we aren't here to see it, then we won't know. We can predict what will happen, but if we don't exist, then we can't know.

The ecosystem that supports our life and the animal life we depend on will be gone. But there could still be an ecosystem of some kind. Will every kind of organism on Earth be killed off? Or will some still exist? I can see if the Earth completely loses its atmosphere then all organisms will be wiped out--but if humans cease to exist before that happens, maybe a thin layer of atmosphere will still exist to sustain some forms of life.

The sooner we die off the better for the planet. :/

If microorganisms can survive in space on the outside of the I.S.S for three years, then . . .

[MyriVerse]

I often wonder what whales and dolphins think about. Probably things I don't have the brain capacity to understand.

Me am hungry. Food.
Now me horny. Sex.

Things along that line.

[Jim Kelly]

Cetaceans have a greater cerebral cortex than humans. So with all that higher brain function, I think they're capable of complex thinking. And the larger the animal, the less it needs to eat for its body weight. That's something I learned in grade 6 science. Small creatures are constantly looking for food and constantly eating because they burn calories much faster. I would expect that a whale, with all its blubber, doesn't lose that much energy. Because they're so big, they have to eat a lot, but that food sustains them for much longer. Which should mean they have a lot of time to hang around doing nothing but thinking about the world.

I suppose because they had it so easy for most of their history, the lack of challenges might have stopped them from developing their intelligence. Our struggle for survival on land made us more intelligent. But if you're constantly thinking about survival, you don't have much time to think about other things. And now with the change in environment, whales have a lot of stress because they can't find food and their family members are dying off so quickly.

[Güicho]

Me am hungry. Food.
Now me horny. Sex.

Things along that line.

So same as humans.

Who now mostly just fill the time between either building towards and/or destroying, depending on how much they've feel they've rightfully satisfied either.

[Tyrannoraptor]

Well, once you have intelligence and can manipulate you're environment, extend lifespans and population, problems arise. But, of course, humans are compatible with the eco-system. It spawned us.

But what if they have upset the balance of nature?

[Zelena]

So same as humans.

Who now mostly just fill the time between either building towards and/or destroying, depending on how much they've feel they've rightfully satisfied either.

The humans are too clever for their own good… and too stupid for their own good too…

[Tyrannoraptor]

Indeed, the whole notion of saving the Earth, or even the present ecosystem, is, bluntly put, silly, and born of Human arrogance.

Do you mean there is no need for us to save or protect the Earth and/or wildlife?!!!! But if we stop saving the Earth, this whole planet might become short-lived.

[Starter Set]

Do you mean there is no need for us to save or protect the Earth and/or wildlife?!!!! But if we stop saving the Earth, this whole planet might become short-lived.

The planet doesn't any help from you or me and no, we can't destroy it. That's a silly notion.

What sadly we can do is to make it, for us and a lot of critters, pretty damn hard/unpleasant to live on it. Which is what we should all try our best to avoid.

Or maybe we will mess it all up, change the climate too heavily for our own good and go extinct. Millions of years from now a new specie is going to study us and say "damn, those apes were stupid".

All the same for Earth. It was there before, it will be there after. Once the percentage of oxygen in the air was way higher, so high that the sky could literally be on fire. Some species loved it that way. Insects were as big as cars.

Human wouldn't have tolerated such conditions. Earth didn't stop rotating cause it wasn't good for us. That notion of saving is so pretentious. Earth doesn't need us on it. Earth could be a volcanic hell and still be fine, thank you very much. (and it was at some point)