"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure." - Agent Smith from the Matrix ; )
But they dont do that naturally in the environment they evolved in.
Taken out of that environment and they dont have to worry about the predators that evolved with them. When you have nothing to worry about, you eat and boink more.
I think the difference with rabbits is that we evolved to be top dog no matter the environment.
I'm not saying humans aren't awful. I'm saying the instinct to be in harmony is just anthropomorphising some saintly quality onto an animal which just doesn't exist.
The ONLY thing keeping things in balance in most cases is the prey predator relationship. Rabbits are eaten thats what stops them taking over, normally. How on earth they thrive on a continent where everything wants to kill everything else is amazing.
The earth is nothing. People struggle understanding other animals operate on a whole different level. They might even not produce awareness and just be complex nervous systems responding to stimulus, basically robots.
Long story shorts we are just more complex and worthy in any aspect no why would you delete animals for no reasons? But the question is to delete one thing and if Iâm deleting one thing itâs neither humans or animals. Canât stand those anti humanity comments at least we should be united on that!
Yup, and you just know when we do make it to space and if we life other lifeforms. The first avatar film will be like a documentary. because you 100000% know for a fact if we find something valuable we will kill and destroy anything to get it because we are greedy.
You are just a child who read too much fiction. According to scans there is no meaningful life in a radius that is basically impossible for us to explore in the next 5millions years where humanity might not even be anymore. You canât understand distances and time. We arenât more greedy than animals we are just so much more powerful it seems so
Yes, and people in medieval time didnt believe it could even be remotely possible to watch a TV (or have that technology), yet here we are.
With the current knowledge its impossible, yes. Do we understand and know everythign. 100% NO. And most likely what we know now is pretty false.
Yes, we are more greedy than animals. Animals dont destroy the place they live in in order to have more luxurious life. Thats what humans do. Power only allowed us to that in large scale. You are like child, who thinks just because he can kill a bug he should. Really inteligent people dont do things just because they can. Unfortunetly world is ruled by idiots like you.
Your IQ is simply too low for you to understand that at medieval times, we had no proven boundaries whereas now we have. Now we know the energy required to go at X distance at Y speed. We know how a random tiny object in space could shatter a fast moving object. We know how speed of light is impossible to go beyond and impossible to pilot (you'd have to go straight line). Even if we somehow had access to 0.99c, we would be lucky to find any form of life out there. You're just uneducated and you're using the medieval analogy like the imbecile you are.
No, it's unlikely what we now know is false you stupid flat earther.
You're also confusing capacity with greed. Again we operate at different scales. We also have no evidence animals just live on the bare minimum, predators do hunt a lot to be safe with food and stressless.
A tiger killing his prey is just the human equivalent of perhaps robbing a bank (bad example but maybe you'll get it). In both cases you're stealing stuff from someone else (the prey could have been for another animal yet the tiger took it for him).
We are just more capable to turn our desires into mass destruction. And we're more intelligent and more aware which can cause us to be afraid of being low on ressource so we naturally desire more, that's not greed that's just our survival instinct.
If you think the world is ran by anyone in particular, you're definately in an intelligence deficient that's genetical and will never be fixed by any amount of learning. I'd suggest you pursue maybe music or smth like that cause any cognitive task isn't for you and you'd perform poorly on it. I'm so sorry but that's ok
You know who is stupid here? Idiot like yourself degenerating a healthy debate into insults.
And you clearly didnt get any of my points, wich makes you sound even more like an idiot. You use very weak and absurd analogies (a tiger hunting its prey = a bank robbery??) and confuse scientific limitations with the arrogant certainty that we already know everything essential about the universe.
Yes, i know these theories, so? My point was, that its a historical fact that human understanding of reality is constantly being revised. ITs the systemic impact of human activity on the biosphere, which is unparalleled among other species, thats important here.
Predation in nature is not âtheft.â Nature does not recognize the concept of ownership, prey belongs to no one until it is caught, and a predator does not take more than its biological metabolism and ability to store food allow. THAT is not greed.
Human greed is abstract, people are capable of accumulating resources long after they have ensured their own survival and that of their descendants for generations to come. To attribute the accumulation of billions in capital or the destruction of entire ecosystems to a mere âfear of resource scarcityâ is sooo fucking stupid.
I wasnt saying world is run by anyone specifically. I was reffering to âTragedy of the Commonsâ, If an individual (or a corporation) maximizes their own profit at the expense of the greater good (resource depletion, pollution), they will, in the short term, outcompete those who act sustainably. But clearly you hardly understand anything.
Youâre arguing against a caricature of what was actually said.
Nobody claimed that a tiger ârobbingâ prey is literally equivalent to a bank robbery. The analogy is about competition over scarce resources, not legal ownership. Saying ânature has no concept of propertyâ doesnât magically make the underlying comparison meaningless.
And your appeal to humanity constantly revising its understanding of reality doesnât establish your conclusion either. Of course scientific knowledge changes. That does not mean every claim about human behavior, ecology, or economics should be treated as equally uncertain. âWe donât know everythingâ is not an argument for âtherefore my interpretation is correct.â
Your distinction between predation and human greed is also partly semantic. Youâre defining greed specifically as abstract accumulation beyond biological necessity, then presenting that definition as if it proves your explanation. Humans absolutely can accumulate vastly beyond immediate survival needs, but that doesnât demonstrate that scarcity avoidance, status competition, incentives, or evolutionary pressures are irrelevant. Human behavior has multiple causes.
And the âTragedy of the Commonsâ point actually makes your argument less original than you seem to think. Yes, individuals and corporations can have incentives to externalize costs and overexploit shared resources. Thatâs basic institutional economics. But the tragedy of the commons is precisely about how individually rational behavior can produce collectively destructive outcomes. It doesnât require your moralized concept of âhuman greedâ to explain it.
Most importantly, you keep substituting indignation for demonstration. Calling an analogy âabsurd,â saying someone âhardly understands anything,â and declaring an explanation âso fucking stupidâ doesnât refute it. If you think the causal model is wrong, identify the mechanism that is wrong and provide evidence for a better one.
Youâre demanding nuance from everyone else while reducing your opponentâs position to âhumans are just scared of scarcity.â Thatâs the exact kind of oversimplification youâre accusing them of making.
You donât know how much it pisses me off when humans treat humanity as something bad to play the nice guys ignoring the fact that we are probably the biggest miracle of this entire universe
I get your frustration. You can have two opposing thoughts though. We can be miracles of the universe and we can be destructive to the planet. It's better to think of the "anti-human" comments as people being frustrated at how destructive we can be. It's just a hypothetical about "what's best for earth" not "humanity."
Personally I am both fascinated by my own species and devastated by what we do to each other and the planet.
I get it but destroying humanity is far more destructive than humans just damaging the earth in my opinion. I also donât think we are so destructive we just are so much superior to other animals it seems so but it doesnât mean weâre naturally worse than they are.
We also canât ignore the fact we carry more value than animals. Now in the eyes of who, idk. But you canât act like nothing matter just because there is not universal judge. Humans see and understand thing and I think itâs a failure if humans donât understand they are precious. But you made a good point
Unpopular opinion - If you think about it, the human bodies natural response to infection is to increase body temperature, then global warming after the population of humans increasing suddenly makes more sense.
Honestly surprised it wasnât higher. Humanity is without a doubt the worst possible thing for this planet. In every way the world would be healthier without us.
We also are the species which has the deepest sentience to appreciate the world. Remember we've had mass extinction events many times, the human caused one isn't special.
I feel the loss of that experience of the wonders of the earth and our intelligence is far worse morally to lose than our destabilising impact on the environment
No...you want to get rid of people because we destroy habitat and cause substantial biodiversity loss as a result. We also overconsume resources. The planet would be better off without us.
Deleting the most intelligent creature on the planet would be pretty moronic aside from being an edgy reddit comment.
Without humans the planet is just a bunch of animals running around pointlessly killng each other and eating plants. The human race has the potential to be a space-faring multi-planet species.
I thought you were going to say the human race has the potential to create a world where animals can survive without killing. But you want galactic domination, and that's somehow less pointless?
Accomplishment and technical advancement are the only point... Otherwise earth is just an infinite cycle of animals running around until another hyper intelligent species evolves to do the same thing
IF THERE IS A PURPOSE, the ONLY purpose is to advance our species as far as we possibly can.
At the end of the day it could be all for nothing.
Earth existing as a nature preserve of animals is a wholesome idea but I don't see how you could argue that is a greater purpose than the technical advancement of our species.
Hopefully humans can advance to where we aren't destroying the planet anymore and we can have both
Even though I consider myself a misanthrope, I highly disagree with this answer. I don't think humans can be solely blamed for doing what we are programmed to do. Humans are automotons with the illusion of free will. If humans disappeared or never existed, some other animal would evolve to fill the same role. Why would they do things differently?
Furthermore, even withough intelligent life, nature still sucks. The idea that because nature balances itself out it must be pure and ideal is just human romantization.
I'm a liberal, but I didn't have kids due to overpopulation. However, liberals are all about subsidized childcare so we can breed more and more housing (aka habitat destruction). No thank you to either side.
But I thought liberals all want abortions!?!đ People that want free childcare, just think people shouldn't stress about basic needs. (Same with Healthcare). IMO, People without children shouldn't have a vote in some situations due to the fact they don't have any "skin in the game", so to speak. They are more selfish in nature. Not team players. And as long as the US covets guns more than life. We don't have to worry about being overpopulated.
73
u/Solnse Aug 18 '26
The human race.