Poll: do you think the human race should survive?

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

which has been the case for every extinct species (that's over 99% of all species that have ever existed).

So when 85% of the planet's population died from poisonous gas they only made up 1% of the biodiversity this world has seen?

I don't think so, if the biodiversity we see now spawned from those 15%.

Climate change will only drive humans to other places. We have the technology, and we will use it.

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Over 99% of all species that have ever lived are gone, this an established fact. Bio diversity is a direct result of evolution, extinction is an integral part of this process. When a species becomes unsuited to it's environment, it's population either dies out or adapts over generations, both ways resulting in the non-existence of the original species. I'm also unsure of what cataclysm you're referring to that murdered 85% of the world's population, nor do I see how that damages the afore mentioned fact that most of the species that have ever existed are dead.
And regardless, I didn't say climate change would kill us, I said lack of resources would.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Considering I'M a human I'd think it should survive yes.

 

[ElPatron]

And regardless, I didn't say climate change would kill us, I said lack of resources would.

While there are examples of species going extinct over causes other than lack of resources, therefore not 99%.

You can't just say X without actually researching. Burden of proof is not mine.

Kump, Pavlov and Arthur (2005) have proposed that during the Permian?Triassic extinction event the warming also upset the oceanic balance between photosynthesising plankton and deep-water sulfate-reducing bacteria, causing massive emissions of hydrogen sulfide which poisoned life on both land and sea and severely weakened the ozone layer, exposing much of the life that still remained to fatal levels of UV radiation.

30 literal seconds on google and I could find said event.

It was the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[3] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[4] It is the only known mass extinction of insects

Permian-Triassic extinction event. And I think most schools teach that.

 

[XMark]

The human race as-is, nah. I mean, I like being human and everything but I guess I've been reading too many wikipedia articles about Kurzweil and the singularity and stuff, so I just can't wait to merge with the future bio-mechanical superintelligence.

 

[dragonswarrior]

I choose other. Because it really doesn't matter. Whether we survive or not the world will go on without us. Life isn't as important as everyone makes it out to be, its just another thing in a universe full of billions of things.

At the end of the day, the universe will continue with us, and it will continue without us. And even if the universe ended, it wouldn't be that big of deal...

 

[JasonBurnout16]

While I do think we should survive, I believe we need to begin adapting soon. We use up far too many resources and the like.

Kinda off topic, but does anyone else think they would have been happier in the past?

 

[Alssadar]

Humanity will survive - as a living being I will make it. And it should, as, after all, humanity is fantastic in its entire nature.
Idealistic to realism, greed and imaginative expectations, kindness and creativity, diplomacy and strength, peace and war, rage and love. Humans are given the choice to live out their lives in their own way, and whether they follow it or not is their own decision.
We humans live and have a wonderful adventure, and I see no reason why we should ever die out to some form of alien or intergalactic issue--I'll be damned before I let my brethren die, and I will fight against any depression of humanity.
Insert any part of Charlie Chaplin's speech from the Great Dictator for more inspirational reasons.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

While there are examples of species going extinct over causes other than lack of resources, therefore not 99%.

You can't just say X without actually researching. Burden of proof is not mine.

You're right, species have gone extinct for reasons other than lack of resources. Perhaps there's been a confusion and/or I haven't made myself clear, but that wasn't what I meant. I simply meant over 99% of all species that have ever existed have become extinct, not that it was all caused by lack of resources.

It was the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[3] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[4] It is the only known mass extinction of insects

Permian-Triassic extinction event. And I think most schools teach that.

Mine didn't even teach evolution, let alone natural history.

 

[ElPatron]

Mine didn't even teach evolution, let alone natural history.

That just sounds awful. Everyone should be taught geology because it is a science that has taught us a lot about other areas, even though everyone jokes about it for being easier than biology or physics.

 

[Olas]

I choose other. Because it really doesn't matter. Whether we survive or not the world will go on without us. Life isn't as important as everyone makes it out to be, its just another thing in a universe full of billions of things.

At the end of the day, the universe will continue with us, and it will continue without us. And even if the universe ended, it wouldn't be that big of deal...

Don't be a nihilist my friend. You imply that life isn't important, but that's merely your opinion. I think you'll realize eventually that your nihilism is just as subject and non-inherent as the opinions of those who DO care about the universe. The only difference is their opinions are actually based on a legitimate real world preference and yours on a pointless logical argument.

Besides, if you HAD to choose between a universe with life or a barren one wouldn't you prefer the former? Why not, right? Sure, life may not serve some higher purpose, but why should it have to? Isn't a world of grass and trees and spiders and bunnies nicer a barren rocky world?

 

[Olas]

Personally I'd save the human race. Anyone who would choose otherwise is incredibly cruel and shortsighted. For all we know humanities most impressive feats and discoveries could all still lie ahead and we're really just at the very beggining of it all. Ending humanity forever purely on what's happening right now is like a teenager committing suicide because he just got a C on a math test.

 

[WanderingFool]

Should humanity survive? Yes.

Why? Because why not? I get pissed off even more with each consectutive instance that people say "I lost my faith in humanity". People who say that and mean it should kill themselves so theres less strain for the rest of us.

Sorry, but thats my default feelings towards people like that... Anyways, as I see it, Humanity may very well destroy itself, or it may change its ways and we endure. Whatever happens *will* happen, and whatever it may be, what humanity does to try and save itself (if said happening isnt actually caused by humanity itself), will determine whether or not we deserve to continue.

I voted other. Once we reach the transhuman phase, our resource use will shrink tremendously, and we'll be able to focus more on learning and exploration. That and religion and extremism will pretty much die out in favor of science and understanding, and even non-intervention.

Okay, to be honest, when I read Transhuman phase, I thought of this:


I would abuse my new cybernetic muscles so bad...

 

[averydeeadaccount]

quoting from enders game (its a book), a species is incapable of choosing its own destruction. we might be prepared to die on an individual level, for the greater survival, but we are simply incapable of allowing extinction.

firstly, most of the cataclysm we know of wouldn't really wipe us out. say we all decide to nuke everyone else, we only have enough for cities, towns, and major population areas. people in deserts, very rural places, or out at see would be fine, and could repopulate. our knowledge and civilisation would die, but not our race.

putting the question a different way, if aliens came seeking to kill us and take our planet, should we let them? no because with any reason they are as or more flawed then we are.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Mine didn't even teach evolution, let alone natural history.

That just sounds awful. Everyone should be taught geology because it is a science that has taught us a lot about other areas, even though everyone jokes about it for being easier than biology or physics.

The vast majority here are Catholic, which means the education system tries to omit anything that might anger the conservatives, who falsely claim to represent all Catholics, (like anything that contradicts Young Earth Creationism, or education on artificial contraception) from the curriculum, while continuing to allow children to be brainwashed into believing the fairy tales in Genesis. Certain groups are trying to change it and they seemingly have the support of the majority of the populas, but the media is far more focused on economics to put any sort of focus on it. /rant

 

[dragonswarrior]

I choose other. Because it really doesn't matter. Whether we survive or not the world will go on without us. Life isn't as important as everyone makes it out to be, its just another thing in a universe full of billions of things.

At the end of the day, the universe will continue with us, and it will continue without us. And even if the universe ended, it wouldn't be that big of deal...

Don't be a nihilist my friend. You imply that life isn't important, but that's merely your opinion. I think you'll realize eventually that your nihilism is just as subject and non-inherent as the opinions of those who DO care about the universe. The only difference is their opinions are actually based on a legitimate real world preference and yours on a pointless logical argument.

Besides, if you HAD to choose between a universe with life or a barren one wouldn't you prefer the former? Why not, right? Sure, life may not serve some higher purpose, but why should it have to? Isn't a world of grass and trees and spiders and bunnies nicer a barren rocky world?

But that's the point!! That's the beauty of it!! Life has no meaning but what you give it, but that doesn't somehow inherently make that meaning less "important". Life is beautiful if you wish it to be. Agggghhhh which is just so cool!!

But the point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter, not in any objective sort of way. The way people subjectively look at things is not somehow lesser or less awesome for being subjective, but that they frequently make the mistake of thinking the importance they attach to life is somehow objective, that life is somehow important in the grand scheme of things.

Though you point out that my viewpoint is subjective. You may be right. I shall have to ponder...

And now I also finally know what nihilism is. Thank you. I had no idea I subscribed to that viewpoint to some degree.

 

[FalloutJack]

OTHER: Really Good Bacon.

The problem is that I both want humanity to do BETTER and I also want alot of dumb people to just DIE. That can lead to alot of death, though, to the point where the genocide might happen.

 

[McMullen]

I'm beginning to think that you could predict that kind of thing being said by anyone who uses that pendant as their avatar, or who incorporates some version of lionheart into their username.

I don't think the concept of "deserving" really applies to the survival of a species. They are either capable of surviving or they are not. Whether we are capable of surviving is another question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm going to assume that survival is measured by our ability to leave this planet before becoming trapped on it.

Mostly I think it depends on whether we're able to free ourselves from this mess we've got ourselves in where corporations dominate the political system. We've lately seen them favor stagnation over innovation (SOPA is a symptom of this). It seems that large corporations don't like being faced with a changing world that requires them to adopt new business models, and so they try to maintain the status quo. On the long term though, the status quo is not survivable.

Another issue is the anti-intellectualism that we have. There are good reasons to have debates concerning evolution and climate change, but the most common and well-known debate is whether they exist at all. This is utterly shameful, and isn't doing anyone any good.

 

[Innegativeion]

21% of the people who visited this thread have convinced themselves that the universe a whole would be better off without the only known race with an intellect of its kind, one that far exceeds all other known races by leaps and bounds, one capable of recording and analyzing all information of their world, the only known race capable of revealing the mysteries of existence.

I find it difficult to fathom how one could see humanity in such a negative light, most likely because I cannot see what they see or through their eyes, so I weep for these people.