As the human species called itself the "Homo sapiens" (wise man), I somehow believe that mankind would be wise enough. But when I take a look at the current situation on earth I really doubt it. With his "wisdom", "good sense", his consciousnature... the Homo sapiens the only species I know who destroys his own life.
As I see the earth with all the bioversity and with all the different life as a HOME what I really like to share with all other species in my lifetime, I see all this destruction caused by humans (human overpopulation, climate change, overfishing, multiplying litter pollution, extinction of species) as an attack.
Why do you think natural selection won't stop just because humans slow down? And what do you mean by slow down?
If by slow down you mean not expanding our society and population as much and working on balancing our society with nature so that both can live more comfortably? Not expanding aggressively on each other.
Also I think I get what you mean by natural selection, things will defeat other things until the thing that can defeat everything is the one that lives? If that is what you mean, then yes I think if humans are smart enough to expand, defeat, and most importantly understand, then humans can also be smart enough to realize that if they keep expanding there will be nothing left but themselves. If people are smart enough to realize that expansion has facts behind it to not be good, then people can learn to live with what they have to make a better future for their lives and nature. Sure maybe natural selection won't stop, but if we are smart enough maybe we can figure out how to balance our using of things, and the ways we live, so that we can let nature not be destroyed, so that we can keep the things we need, and let the things we need have a good life too. If we slow down maybe we can figure something out before humans destroy themselves.
"until the thing that can defeat everything is the one that lives?" < this is not guaranteed. In fact it's highly unlikely to happen in the presence of humans with all our "Save all the things!" attitude.(or rather all the cute wolfy panda things) Besides, it's not as though natural selection doesn't kill off humans as well. Diseases and predators are all over the place.
"... smart enough to realize that if they keep expanding there will be nothing left" <This has already happened but it's not because people are whining about hunting (which is mostly controlled). It's because we've seen the effects of human activity on the environment. if you want to fight against killing animals fight against the uncontrolled part; poachers and abusive animal owners).
"... then people can learn to live with what they have to make a better future for their lives and nature" < We're working on it! Quit acting like nobody gives a shit. That’s deluded. Helium 3! Look it up.
That's correct that things kill off humans as well, but people don't die enough to balance with the amount humans living. And modern day medicine is keeping people alive more , allowing them to live longer, so the number of people needing more space, energy, resources and anything else a person needs, grows the more people there are, making a damaging effect on the environment/nature. And I am pretty sure it's a fact that more people live each day and are born each day then people that die each day. So if people have no reason to stop expanding we are probably going to run out of things we need because we used those things to much.
What I am also suggesting with that fact of more people being born and staying alive each day is where will we live if we need land to live on? and what if that land is where a part of nature is that we are trying to save? Will we expand onto that protected land? Or will we not allow people to live there and build more buildings? We will run out of resources to build things? Will come to a conclusion of not allowing more people to be born?
Do we really need this many people and more each day? Is that helpful to society and the environment in more positive ways then negative ways? Is it positive to expand our population all the time?
I agree that poachers are not helpful when it comes to saving nature and I hope that poachers are ended forever.
I think people care, but I also think that when we compare how many people care to how many people don't care, that the amount of people that don't care are a larger group. This could be wrong though. I'd rather think that less people give a shit to prepare for the worst, but at the same time I'm glad to know a huge group of our population cares about the environment, if there is a huge group of people that care about the environment?
When I also talk about expansion, I also mean farm land, or any land that we need more of to use instead of saving nature in that area.
I'm not just suggesting that nature can be less of by hunting, even though that is a problem too. It is also nice to know it is being more controlled. I'm also glad that people are working on protecting the environment, to try to be fair to the other creatures on this planet.
No matter how much you complain, people are not going to stop increasing the population. So stop whining. People are born. People live. People die. The same goes for all other species. Many people may be born in a single day, but many people will die as well. It is impossible to 'control the human population' in such a manner, so why waste your oh-so-precious time complaining about it?
Also, are you telling me that you never once imagined what it would be like to have children to call your own? If you did, then why would you attempt to kill the dreams of others by essentially saying that children are not needed for a properly functioning planet? If you didn't, then, still, why would you want to be the ass that tried to force people to think the same way you do?
I would rather try to tell people to help nature then to let people expand with destructive habits. I am not whining. Your right people are born. Your right people are alive. You are correct people die. You are correct all other species die as well. It is possible to control the human population, an example that I know is China does something like that. It is your opinion to think that I am wasting time, I believe I am not wasting time. I believe that people should know that nature is the most beautiful, interesting, changing life in this world and I will hate the day when all that is left on this world when it is covered in cities is only self centered humans!
I have imagined having a child of my own, but I am not so selfish to think that my life and what I do with it doesn't effect the world around me and I do not think that whatever I do will be good because I am human because decisions can be wrong! If killing their dreams means explaining to them that their are more people alive then that die each day making a future without resources, space, or a nature that can help us be alive then yes I will kill their dreams if it means making them understand something new to help their minds realize that we are damaging the planet with our constant expansion and destructive self centered life style. Children aren't needed for a properly functioning planet, and that's a fact. Other species can live on a planet and the planet can still be functioning. If people keep expanding their population we will destroy a beautiful cycle of nature if everything keeps expanding to become a comfortable home for only humans. Humans are destroying a beautiful environment of nature and replacing it with their own properly functioning society. If everything is society their will only be humans left to eat each other and little space to live. I'm not trying to force them to think how I think, I'm trying to make them understand something they might not know.
I am not a sexist and a heterophobe, and your explanation of why you think I am a sexist and a heterophobe didn't prove why you think I am a sexist and a heterophobe. You said, "because you fucking are", and I don't see how sex proves that I am a sexist and heterophobe. If you meant to say, something is because it is? You then are not describing something but are saying that you believe something is something. And something without facts to prove that it is a true answer, is not an answer and can also not be believed. So without facts to prove that I am a sexist and a heterophobe, I am not a sexist and a heterophobe and I do not believe that I am a sexist and a heterophobe because it is not proven. What your comment did explain was that you question if I am a sexist and a heterophobe, because you put question mark after what you typed as your explanation/reply.
Why do you think I should be locked up for treason? I'm telling people to stop making people for a couple of years (possibly in cycles) as a form of population control to help humanity and natures future for surviving on planet earth. Also I am not daring to tell a women what to do with her body, but telling her about what it means to have child and how that child effects the world and all things on the world by using energy, resources, and things we will eventually use so much of that we will not be able to use those things anymore, making human lives for future generations very horrible. Also if we use something so much that it becomes extinct, that thing that was used so much may have been needed by something else to help survive, or help complete a cycle of nature. Having one child seems harmless, but if everyone has one child or more, it can make a disaster for humanity and nature. The more people there are, the more people we have to take care of, the more things we have to do to keep them alive, like we will need more land for homes, more land for growing food, more land for anything to help more people or just more anything to help people. I am not saying that there is no room for humanity to live on earth, but I am saying that almost everything that is not humanity will most likely be effected with suffering and eventually will become dead from the constant growth and prolonged life human population. And once nature has suffered and has been used to its none existence or death, humanity will start to die, and that will be our own fault. We do not need people more people, we don't even need all the people who are alive now. It is actually not helpful to humanity or nature to have this many people alive.
This picture means when a person is born it takes a lot to keep that person alive and give it a modern day human life. Meaning that people need energy, resources, food (many people need to eat!) a home that probably is to big for what they need to live in (and you don't need much space to live in)(Humans living a life that takes more then it needs to feel comfortable!) and when that person needs to live somewhere they have to cover up another piece of earth. For example a group of people who collectively want to live together that when more people join this collective group of houses, the houses expand outward from the center of the society slowly but steadly using more and more space until there is nothing left but us. Because this isn't just one person, there are people being born all the time! Yes humans do beautiful things based on opinion, but that does not mean that the size and life style of our population doesn't effect the environment/nature in ways that destroy it. If people want to do something beautiful they should help the environment/nature. Humans living a life that takes more then it needs to feel comfortable which steadly destroys nature, and nature is the most beautiful thing on this planet. It also doesn't mean that just because humans do beautiful things that they are set free of everything bad they've done and are doing. I'm not saying that out of opinion, because if someone broke the law and was going to go to jail, their lawyer hopefully would not say,"your honor don't you think this man should be set free from blame and punishment because he does beautiful things?" And if this mans lawyer didn't explain what beautiful things the man in question of punishment and blame did? Then that man would probably go to jail because his lawyer said something and did not give the evidence proving the beautiful things that would set him free from what he had done wrong. This sentence leads me to ask, what do you mean by Humans do beautiful things? And why do you think I don't appreciate the possibly beautiful things that people do? The drawing says people make problems, but it is also true that people make solutions, and are trying to make solutions for saving the environment/nature. But do we really need more people to solve a problem that is started when humans are born and a problem that is made worse from humans over their lives from the ways they live them in an ever expanding group people mostly doing the same horrible thing? So yes people should change their life styles to help nature. And I don't say we should stop making people forever. I mean stop making people until the population is small enough to not effect the environment/nature with our lifestyles, and then we can change our life styles to make ourselves more healthy and only use what we need to survive and if we want we can do anything else that is healthy for Humans and more importantly healthy for the Environment/Nature.
Yep and peope say "a woman should be allowed to have children whenever" that is true, but a guy should know how to keep it in his pants too. Baby no baby, nursery or "man cave", minivans or sports car.
Who cares about entertainment, people will always find away to entertain themselves. If anything it is harder to get jobs with all of these people, I'm pretty sure that's a problem that people have, that we don't have enough jobs for everyone. And the jobs we do have might not be good for the person working or might be harmful to other things. I mean people have to constantly make more jobs for people and constantly make more and more for people I mean we will run out of space if we keep expanding the way we do! And jobs will shorten with the amount of people, meaning people will have enough jobs if there are also less people, so the people to job ratio will become even.
How humans many are being born everyday? and how many people keep on living? And as medicine expands its knowledge of keeping people alive then wouldn't the amount of people living and being born be much more then the small amount of people dying? The animals would not kill us all, even though we probably deserve it. I mean people have been defending themselves for a long time, they will figure out ways to not be killed by animals and keep themselves at a population size that doesn't expand as rapidly as the one we have now.
HAHA! I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!! We had it coming, I mean nature had to balance itself somehow and people should keep trying to accomplish balance for nature before our dooms day because nature deserves help to be balanced, even if we are all going to this hell.
All those human-animal attacks are nature balancing it's self out people need to deal with it. Nobody knows the difference between "survival" hunting and "population control" hunting humans thinking that they need to help nature by killing to "control" it is the biggest hypocrisy I've ever known.