Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that is true, then humans indeed serve a purpose; they are useful.
How "useful" humans are is still pretty nuanced. That humans feel a need to "protect life on earth" often arises because humans have already damaged it. If humans hadn't existed to the point that damage occurred, no need to "protect" anything. Allow nature to do what's needed. Except that humans often take it upon themselves to interfere with nature because in their eyes nature seems to be cruel or unfair. Nature is a harsh mother but it's for the offspring's own good. Harshness produces stronger children. A species must adapt to conditions or perish. Human play favorites; mistakenly trying to even out the odds, shore up the underdog. Nature also often requires a lot more time to correct or counteract some natural event. We are an impatient species, and we want to see results within our short lifespan. OK, it's a purely human construct, but remember, "haste makes waste".
Examples:
Too many predators around killing a species we happen to find beautiful, useful, or charismatic. So, we control or eliminate predators. End result is an ecologic disaster or at least a broad scale change no one intended.
We prefer some tree or flower so we wipe out their competitors, suppress fires, or alter their habitat conditions chemically with no regard for the consequences. The entire landscape changes and not necessarily for the better. The plant community changes and may never recover back to what we had initially. And it may no longer support the species we hoped to benefit.
Some natural event such as a flood or drought occurs. Humans want things "fixed" faster than nature might move, so we drain off, impound, or introduce water where it wouldn't naturally exist. Wildlife movements change (migration stops, animals overgraze habitat, then starve), soil microorganisms change (beneficial species die, natural toxins such as botulism bloom, which kills off thousands of birds). We add chemical fertilizers to boost plant production but that also boosts production of invasive weeds that have little to no value to wildlife.
Human interference can kick off a chain reaction that does no one (including the species of interest) any good. Reactions tend to be more drastic pendulum swings than intended as nature tries to re-balance itself. We act without understanding the very system we hope to "improve", or we act simply because we can.
So, are humans useful or not? OK, I've spent a career in the natural resource/environmental management fields so maybe I've seen more than my fair share of the results of human stupidity and arrogance, but the older this writer gets the more she believes the main use humans can be put to is meddling.
Last edited by Parnassia; 05-10-2024 at 03:14 PM..
I've seen more than my fair share of the results of human stupidity and arrogance, but the older this writer gets the more she believes the main use humans can be put to is meddling.
You got that right. Great post. And not just meddling with the natural world, flora and fauna. Also meddling with other humans who just want to be left alone.
I think the OP was using the word "useful" with respect to our eco system. Seems like a lot of responses are using the word in a more general sense.
No, humans are not useful to our ecosystem. We take and take and take and give very little back. We have displaced or killed nearly all major predators causing an imbalance. We have completely disrupted the hydrologic and other natural cycles of our home to further our own ends. Our population continues to grow along with the need for more housing, roads, water etc.. thereby eating up open space occupied by the animals that we share this planet with.
And the pollution!! The pacific ocean garbage island continues to grow and grow with no end in site and no one chiming in to take responsibility for it or clean it up (though lets face it, the united states produces 1/3 of the worlds garbage so a lot of that trash comes directly from American households). The air in our cities gets worse and worse as more people being born mean more cars on the road and more PM10 emissions from construction activity.
We really should be ashamed of ourselves for our disregard of the ecosystem and the other creatures that we share this planet with. The bible calls for man to be stewards of the land at which we have amply fallen short. We certainly use a disproportionate amount of what our home has to offer.
But things will not change until it all goes to hell. Only when people start dying in large numbers will we give up our lifted pickup trucks at 10mpg, stop buying plastics, stop having too many children, stop building coal fired power plants etc..
I suspect that if the other animals had their way things would be no different.
The post is too one dimensional. People generally make a LOT of useful things. Trying to to cure cancer, curing serious diseases that decimated populations in the past, soup kitchens and shelters for homeless people and other animals. It's a very, very long list of things that people do to benefit the world.
Sure, one may be able to make an equally long list of the sins of humans, if you want to use that word, but why take such a negative, one sided viewpoint? Accentuate the positive aspects of life, they're all around us.
These are all things that only benefit humans, not the earth and our ecosystem as whole. The list of our benefit to the earth is very short.
If that is true, then humans indeed serve a purpose; they are useful.
I don’t see it as a purpose since the need only presents itself as a result of our existence. There is a difference between purpose vs. moral philosophy.
How "useful" humans are is still pretty nuanced. That humans feel a need to "protect life on earth" often arises because humans have already damaged it. If humans hadn't existed to the point that damage occurred, no need to "protect" anything. Allow nature to do what's needed. Except that humans often take it upon themselves to interfere with nature because in their eyes nature seems to be cruel or unfair. Nature is a harsh mother but it's for the offspring's own good. Harshness produces stronger children. A species must adapt to conditions or perish. Human play favorites; mistakenly trying to even out the odds, shore up the underdog. Nature also often requires a lot more time to correct or counteract some natural event. We are an impatient species, and we want to see results within our short lifespan. OK, it's a purely human construct, but remember, "haste makes waste".
Examples:
Too many predators around killing a species we happen to find beautiful, useful, or charismatic. So, we control or eliminate predators. End result is an ecologic disaster or at least a broad scale change no one intended.
We prefer some tree or flower so we wipe out their competitors, suppress fires, or alter their habitat conditions chemically with no regard for the consequences. The entire landscape changes and not necessarily for the better. The plant community changes and may never recover back to what we had initially. And it may no longer support the species we hoped to benefit.
Some natural event such as a flood or drought occurs. Humans want things "fixed" faster than nature might move, so we drain off, impound, or introduce water where it wouldn't naturally exist. Wildlife movements change (migration stops, animals overgraze habitat, then starve), soil microorganisms change (beneficial species die, natural toxins such as botulism bloom, which kills off thousands of birds). We add chemical fertilizers to boost plant production but that also boosts production of invasive weeds that have little to no value to wildlife.
Human interference can kick off a chain reaction that does no one (including the species of interest) any good. Reactions tend to be more drastic pendulum swings than intended as nature tries to re-balance itself. We act without understanding the very system we hope to "improve", or we act simply because we can.
So, are humans useful or not? OK, I've spent a career in the natural resource/environmental management fields so maybe I've seen more than my fair share of the results of human stupidity and arrogance, but the older this writer gets the more she believes the main use humans can be put to is meddling.
Meddling might be the most informative descriptor that we currently have, but I did find a new term (that's new to me) - hyper-keystone species, which is different than a keystone role. Keystone species contribute to their local environment while leaving behind a small footprint. Hyperkeystone species, on the other hand, affect keystone species across habitats. Humans are categorized as hyperkeystone according to the sources below.
But I question whether humans were ever a keystone species and whether it is necessary to be a keystone species first before one can be considered a hyperkeystone. The term keystone was used to show that a particular part was essential to the overall structure. Without it, things would fall apart. Bob Paine, a biologist, challenged the idea that ecosystems can remain stable as long as there are diverse species. He tossed starfish into the ocean off a coast in Washington. Within one year, the diversity of the species had diminished by half because the starfish were no longer there. Their absence allowed certain populations to grow unchecked causing many others to disappear. Therefore, diversification is not enough for ecosystems to remain stable. A keystone species is needed as well.
If the starfish are a keystone species in that habitat, then what are the others considered, especially the species that did not allow for diversification after growing unchecked by the missing starfish? Humans, and in this specific situation, Bob Paine, "meddled." By his meddling, the simple act of plucking and tossing starfish, the effect was the growth of specific species that otherwise wouldn't have. Would a human be considered a "keystone" for those specific species?
I think it comes down to preference. Is a stable diversified world preferred over a non-diversified? Can humans ever become a keystone species? Based upon what you wrote and what I read, I think not. Perhaps we have benefited from one keystone species at some point, but because of its disappearance, we were able to thrive.
Gratitude (and protecting life on earth) is different than indebtedness or guilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
If that is true, then humans indeed serve a purpose; they are useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
I don’t see it as a purpose since the need only presents itself as a result of our existence. There is a difference between purpose vs. moral philosophy.
I didn't ask to be here so I don't conclude that because I'm here, I owe somebody or something for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
I'm not following. The need to show gratitude?
My point is I (or anyone) can feel thankful/appreciative of life sans guilt or indebtedness in the same way I can define morality sans religion or a universal purpose.
My point is I (or anyone) can feel thankful/appreciative of life sans guilt or indebtedness in the same way I can define morality sans religion or a universal purpose.
I see. I guess I was responding to the philosophy that living and non-living things need to be useful. My argument is that we don't have to be - an approach that I don't personally take.
We really should be ashamed of ourselves for our disregard of the ecosystem and the other creatures that we share this planet with. The bible calls for man to be stewards of the land at which we have amply fallen short.
From my perspective (and relative to this forum), it’s a question of environmental ethics and doesn’t have anything to do with man’s concept of religion. Rather, our morality (and purpose/usefulness) is based in our (flawed) separate existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
It just means that I don't have to feel guilty for trying to shelter myself and my family
Are you speaking in terms of (religious) guilt and shame, as CCS414 (above)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How "useful" humans are is still pretty nuanced. That humans feel a need to "protect life on earth" often arises because humans have already damaged it. If humans hadn't existed to the point that damage occurred, no need to "protect" anything. Allow nature to do what's needed. Except that humans often take it upon themselves to interfere with nature because in their eyes nature seems to be cruel or unfair. Nature is a harsh mother but it's for the offspring's own good. Harshness produces stronger children. A species must adapt to conditions or perish. Human play favorites; mistakenly trying to even out the odds, shore up the underdog. Nature also often requires a lot more time to correct or counteract some natural event. We are an impatient species, and we want to see results within our short lifespan. OK, it's a purely human construct, but remember, "haste makes waste".
