Would the Earth be better or not without people?

Question

Environmentally speaking. Yes or No


If you want to add:
How would that be so? Will Yes win in this poll or No?

Answer 1

It would be better. We are just too damn dominating. Too bad we can't do anything...and don't give me that global warming crap..

Answer 2

Is this even up for debate? Humans' impact on this planet has been widespread and ruinous over the last few centuries, especially with the advent of the industrial age.

Logging has threatened rain forests, leading many species to extinction, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is impacting the global temperature, deserts are expanding, and the ice caps and glaciers are melting, threatening water supplies.

But with or without people, this world will go on. The environment of the future will likely be quite different than the present, just as the environment of the present was much different than that of the past. But that doesn't quite pinpoint which environment was better. Better for humans, perhaps? If that is what you mean, then we are on a destructive path.

And one last thing that I think is interesting: Because of humans, the Russian city of Pripryat near Chernobyl is a "ghost city" which no human being will be able to safely inhabit for at least another 300 to 900 years because of lingering radiation caused by the reactor accident.

Answer 3

Wow, I'm really weird, and I know I think funny, so don't beat me up on this.......but are humans here naturally? did they evolve with everything else here? doesn't that make them natural? and besides, if we were to nuke the face of the earth, the earth would still be here, we wouldn't, but if the history of the earth, as we currently believe it is true, the earth will recover and evolve, it can survive us. But you have to see all the cultivation that has taken place, I understand about deforestation, but there are places that grow crops today that grew nothing 100 years ago, I live in Montana. This is getting too long and boring ...............sorry.

Answer 4

Define better. Only a person can make that judgement so without people no such judgement could be made. Would other species of animals do better? Probably. Would life flourish more? I don't know.

Answer 5

Yes, I believe so. I think that earth will heave a gigantic sigh of relief when the last human being takes his/her last, polluted breath. We have ripped her and despoiled her from top to bottom - she needs a break.

Answer 6

Obviously the world would be better without us. That is like asking if a dog (or West Virginians) would be better without ticks and fleas. But we are here and best make the most out of it.

Answer 7

it would be better without the people that are currently inhabiting the Earth.

But if the humans were to go back to the way they lived as cavemen and such, living off the land like animals, then the Earth would be just fine with them..

Answer 8

Yes, trees and shrubs would dominate. Therefore there would be more of a variety habitats for organisms. There wouldn't be any unnatural deforestation or unnatural products to contribute to global warming.

Answer 9

Yes, the people are just too much of a drain for all the other species and they should go.

Answer 10

humans cause destruction where ever they go. greed and war, mankind is destroying earth as we speak this very moment. so yes, earth would be better without us humans. :)

Answer 11

yes it would
the only thing humans have done is pollute,take resources from the enviroment, cause major rifts in natural balance and much much more