Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

After browsing the various subreddits involving death, reading news articles, reading up on history, And watching various videos on liveleak I've come to the conclusion that we humans are an evil, vile species in which any good that we do is outdone by our seemingly inherent evil; and we deserve to get wiped out in a Oryx and Crake styled plague.
Destructive, hateful, and scary; we're monsters; not only killing our own kind, but abusing wildlife; and sucking the earth clean of its resources; and destroying the environment; were parasites that the earth is desperately in need of cleansing.
People say have faith in humanity, but we are evil, scary creatures akin to the various monsters we create in our mythology's; our evil is greater than any good that we accomplish.
I'm curious, what does kym think about this?

"abusing wildlife"

how so?

"sucking the earth clean of its resources"

HA… no

"destroying the environment"

no, we're not

"were parasites"

"Destructive, hateful, and scary"

you are aware that you yourself are a human, right?

It took you this long to come to this realization? Of course humans destructively careless monsters at the primal core of our being. I would say we should have been wiped out centuries ago by natural selection, but by that same law and through some artificial means we proved to be too damn resilient to just die off.

I'd add more to that, but you pretty much took most the words right out of my mouth.

inb4 downvotes and "hurr your just misanthropes, humans are the best"

I really disagree with this. Looking back at history, you can see what we have accomplished. Compare your life to someone of that in the Middle-Ages. Take a moment to think. We live in an age where despite that there are a lot of problems, a lot of people can live with really high standards of living in comparison to any era. We have done the once impossible and went into space, there is so much good we have done, that we're doing and that we can do.

Look, think of it as neutral. Because there is good and bad (both concepts we made up) and it's pretty much balanced. A lot of good news go unnoticed because it's small or not a wide scale thing. The pure fact that we know that something is wrong shows that there are right things to compare it too.

Basically I find it naive and pretty silly to think we're an evil race. And if you honestly believe it I pity you. Are you sure you even deserve the good things in your life if your willing to say it means nothing because some people are chopping down rainforests?

Most modern anthropolgists would probably agree that humans are an aggressive species, but that does not necessarily mean that we are condemned to be violent. While human history and pre-history is rife with conflict, including slavery, cannibalism, systematic rape and genocide, the good news is that as a global, long-term trend, violence is actually decreasing. This in spite of us having the technological tools to cause destruction on an earlier unimaginable scale. The world and the human race are getting better, albeit slowly, and from a bad starting point. Good video on the subject:

Don't get your worldview solely from reddit.

Okay, here goes, point by point:

>Abusing wildlife

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF
"Creatures across land, rivers and the seas are being decimated as humans kill them for food in unsustainable numbers, while polluting or destroying their habitats, the research by scientists at WWF and the Zoological Society of London found."

>sucking the earth clean of its resources

We've used up all the resources the Earth can provide for the year and are now in 'overdraft', campaigners warn
"The Global Footprint Network said that in 1961, humanity only used around two-thirds of the available natural resources on Earth, but by the 1970s increased carbon emissions and consumption began to outstrip what the planet could provide. Humans now need the equivalent of 1.5 planets to sustain us, and by mid century it will have risen to two planets, the campaigners said."

>destroying the environment

You're somewhat correct here, actually. The planet doesn't care what happens to it; it was a ball of lava a few billion years ago, and we could hardly do worse than that.

On the other hand, we have to look at it from the perspective of life, and humanity in particular. Firstly, refer to the article about wildlife destruction. Secondly, this:

U.N. panel’s climate report holds stark warnings, urgent call to action

As George Carlin said: the planet is fine, the people are fucked.

>you are aware that you yourself are a human, right?

Judging from his use of the word "we're", I suspect so.

I want to make it very clear that I do not believe that Homo sapiens are any more or less capable of evil than any other animal. Unfortunately, in terms of our relationship with earth, the environment, and other animals at the moment, we could be doing a lot better.

you sound like the type of guy that was oblivious to anything till you picked a history text for the first time.

humans are a shitload of bad things, and we have done a lot of bad deeds, just as that we are also capable of good ones, people are negative and defeatist by nature, so of course they are gonna focus more on the bad things than the good ones, we on itself have manage to create cultures that have limitless roots, we have broken limits and managed, as a group to survive anything this cold earth as trown at us, from destructive plagues to horrible wars, we have stood together and done tons of careless acts.

we are not set to be aggresive, we can be whatever we want to be, this is similar to all those images you see in the internet of bad parts of a fandom making all of it look bad, just because a group of people do bad deeds doesnt mean we are all condemnded to die.

i dont disagree we have polluted earth or destroyed wildlife, but just as that we are capable of fixing it (or atleast not make it as bad), however putting up that spoiled brat actitude that everyone should just die is not gonna get anyone anywhere, is pretty much being dead weight that complains all the time.

I guess your right, i was angry while i was writing it (now i feel calmer)
now i do see how you could be right about be being oblivious about history, rage makes you illogical.

People have and will continue to disparage, harm, and murder others of their species over differences of nearly any kind, or for personal benefit. We have waged wars in which millions have died over petty things like religion and power. Not only that, but we’ve managed to damage our own planet more than ever before with things such as pollution, and it’s reasonable to say that species aside from our own would be far better without us.
However, it’s totally unjustified to say that the entire human species is evil. Although certain humans can be horrible and destructive, there are plenty of great people to make up for at least part of that destruction. After all, it’s not in human nature to just be totally evil. We’re more intelligent than any other species, and it’s up to us to decide whether to use that ability to help our planet or help only ourselves.
Overall, alike to Spider, I’m neutral on this. Accusing our species as a whole for what only some have done is generalizing to the max

@Particle-Mare

1.
a·buse
verb
gerund or present participle: abusing
əˈbyo͞oz/
1.
use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
I dont see how were are misusing wildlife

and those stats were taken from only 3,430 species 10–14 million species of life on the Earth

which leads me to believe that they purposefully took the data from species that were endangered.

Not to mention that the 99% of all living things that have ever lived on the planet have already gone extinct. The ecosystem can exist and thrive even when large groups of animals have been killed off.

Now if this is an argument for why humans are evil ( i know you don't think this, but it is the topic of the thread) then i can pretty much counter it by pointing out the large amount of organizations dedicated to fixing and reversing this large dying off of animals. Not to mention that thanks to new science we have been able to clone extinct animals. Its a process called de-extinction Link Link i think the animal they brought back was a tiger, but im not sure. See? Everything is gonna be just fine.

2. I find it hard to believe that all of our natural resources have been used up. We simply haven't explored enough of the planet to prove this. In fact, the deepest we've ever gone in our own crust was about 7 miles, and that was barely scratching it. Not to mention all the natural resources buried in the ocean where we haven't gone too yet.

3. At end of the permian period there was a mass extinction event. It was and still is the biggest in recorded history. 96% of everything alive on the planet died. And after that everything was okay, after that came the dinosaurs, then they experience a mass extinction. then after that came mammals and we experienced a mass extinction.

In fact, we humans lived through one. it was the Pleistocene mass extinction. and we are still here, everything is fine. And were going through one right now. called the holocene mass extinction. It is caused by humans. But you know what, we and everything else are gonna be just fine.

oh goody a "Humans are evil" thread!

oh let's just stop surviving, then maybe we'll be good, let's stop fallowing our ideals and our pride, for it's hurting the little ducklings…

But seriously, Humanity's Willpower can be harsh, but it's one of our main priorities.

I wanna go to space. Not sit and complain about our environment.

Have you seen conditions in space and on others planets? No matter where you go It's LEAGUES worse than it is here.

Kitsune said:

…not only killing our own kind,..

25% of mammals commit infanticide. If you put two males of almost any species in a room with a fertile female, they almost certainly will fight each other to the death--before killing any young that female may have.

…abusing wildlife…

Cyanobacteria were one of the first organisms to produce oxygen via photosynthesis. The resulting explosion of oxygen in the atmosphere triggered an extinction event which killed most anaerobic organisms and plunged the Earth into a 400 million year long ice age so severe, it's likely the entirety of the planet was covered in ice.

How's that for messing up the environment?

Overhunting by felines drove the Stephens Island wren extinct.

The Ophiocordyceps unilateralis fungus lives by infecting ants' brains, forcibly seizing control, having the ant walk into a populated area, and then explode--spreading infectious spores into any nearby ants.

Various species will kill the young of another, and, like a changeling from folklore, plant their own young into the nest to be raised by the unsuspecting parent.

…sucking the earth clean of its resources…

Very few of our "finite" resources are anywhere close to being exhausted.

Oil was supposed to be well past its "peak" by now--and yet there's been so much worry over the shale oil boom, the Saudi's have had to flood the market to try and kill it. As the price and demand for something increases, money floods in to develop new technologies that allow us to reach more and more of that resource. Eventually, that money will be used for space mining and then the holy grail--matter/energy conversion.

We'll be well into space by the time the Earth's "sucked clean." And so what if it is? It's not like any other species is going to be using helium for anything.

…destroying the environment…

See the aforementioned 400 million year long ice age. Or locusts. Or ash borers. Or volcanoes. Or asteroids.

…the earth is desperately in need of cleansing…

Throughout its life, the Earth has "cleansed" 99.9% of everything that has ever lived on it. I don't think you need to worry about the Earth.

So please, cut the misanthropy and enjoy the beauty the Earth has graced us with.

I don't care, I want to go to space.

@TripleA9000

abuse
2. treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.

Issues like factory farming are contentious, but there's also hunting to extinction, methodical habitat destruction, and so on. Besides, arguing that killing off an entire species isn't "misusing" is frankly a misuse of the word.

>those stats were taken from only 3,430 species

Yes. It's called sampling, and it's extremely important in science, particularly biology, anthropology and so on. These are trained biologists with PhDs, so I think it's fair to assume that they know what they're doing. Samples such as these are taken across a diverse range of species and habitats, in order to be as accurate as possible.

>which leads me to believe that they purposefully took the data from species that were endangered.

Sorry, but this is just a tinfoil hat accusation.

>the large amount of organizations dedicated to fixing and reversing this large dying off of animals

It's the results that count. Once again, half of earth's wildlife – gone.

>Natural resources

It's not just oil and underground minerals, you realize? We are facing resources crises elsewhere. Deforestation is an epidemic, and "the world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate".

Besides, it doesn't matter what you find "hard to believe". These are environmental institutes with hundreds of scientists in their employ. If you want to offer a counterargument, you're going to have to provide an equally credible source.

>cloning
>mass extinction event caused by humans

If you shoot a person in the face and then clone an exact copy of them, you've still committed murder. Just because we can bring a species back, doesn't mean that we are absolved of the ethical burden of destroying it in the first place.

I'm pretty damn sick of the emotional propaganda and lies about motive that people tell others and themselves- if you think about it for any kind of rationality, you eventually realize that life itself is inherently meaningless without self-aware, sentient and intelligent beings to appreciate it both for its science, inherent beauty, and usefulness (thus "resources"). When you talk about "saving the planet", what you really should say instead is "saving our collective asses", because we'd almost certainly be destroyed before all other lifeforms.
So what do you call someone who smokes an entire pack of cigarettes at once and throws the smoking butts on the foot of his bed? Evil? Or stupid?
Stupid. Incredibly, shit-fuckeringly stupid. Now that I'd agree with. But so is the nature of life. Evolution isn't capable of producing an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-feeling being. In my worldview, what makes humans the best species is our potential for greatness and brilliant discoveries, which none other shares.

1. Humans are sentient and make choices. Not all humans murder other humans or do the other things you pointed out.

2. Extinction of an animal species does not matter. Animals have gone extinct since the dawn of life, with or without humans. Animals do not care if other animals go extinct, and I don't either.

3. The advancement of the human race is the greatest good. Everything else is secondary. Like other species, humans have no obligation to protect another species from extinction.

4. The Earth does not care what humans do to it. It isn't alive.

If you want to rid yourself of life, that's fine. However, what you perceive as a moral obligation to nature is unfounded. Animals are not people, and the destruction of Earth does not matter. Advancement of my own species, be it requiring the next trip to Mars or otherwise, matters more to me than one of the trillions of planets in the universe.

Also, cut humans some damn slack. No other species on Earth has managed to invent writing, harness electricity, and travel into space. I'd say those are some fairly big accomplishments.

It's called terraforming, my friend. We humans are stubborn, and we'll make those fuckers be habitable for us whether they like it or not!
(See, I just anthropomorphized planets- the same kind of fallacious thinking that a lot of people in this thread making environmental arguments have done. My expert rhetorical strategies are unmatched!)

Terraforming won't do much if the planet gets next to no sunlight and is constantly below freezing, or it gets too much sunlight and the surface becomes an incinerator whenever the planet rotates to face the sun.

I say that we preserve the environment because we're probably be on Earth for quite awhile and it'd be easier to prevent and conserve now rather than try to fix things in the future. We're doing it to help ourselves, being moral about the environment and other animals is just a good side effect.

we have the ability to change that. If billions of microscopic bacteria can do it, than its only a matter of time before we do it.

Not too likely, stuff like that's bordering science fiction levels of technology. We're not talking about something relatively simple like converting a mostly CO2 comprised atmosphere. That's not to say reforming the structure of a planets atmosphere is easy, bu when comparing it to the aforementioned conditions, it's pretty basic.

@xTSGx
@Taryn

Before I delve into my main response, I would like to elaborate on a couple of definitions, just so that it's 100% clear what I'm basing my arguments on.

Namely, the idea of an entity being destructive. The term is simply defined as how much damage an entity does, and is thus based upon consequences. The intent is irrelevant – if one intends to help but only makes the situation worse, then one is destructive.

Furthermore, it would probably be a good idea to mention what it means for an entity to be evil, since OP uses that specific word also. I will not be addressing the question of evil here due to time and character limit constraints, but it would probably be best for me to get it out of the way ASAP. I will assume that evil is based upon intent, as opposed to consequences. If you want to kick a kitten off a cliff, then you are evil regardless of whether or not you succeed, fail, or end up inadvertently making the kitten's situation better.

Point one – the human species is destructive to others. This is beyond question and beyond doubt. We are objectively detrimental to the condition of the earth, and especially the species within it.

@Taryn you do not appear to dispute this, asserting that "everything else is secondary", "extinction of an animal species does not matter", and "the destruction of the Earth does not matter". In essence, you are not so much arguing that human beings are not destructive, as you are arguing that our destructive nature is natural and tolerable.

@xTSGx

Your point about cyanobacteria is logically fallacious, because you are drawing your (implied) conclusion "Homo sapiens are not destructive" from the fact that another species was more destructive in the past. In other words, you did not refute the assertion that human beings are damaging to other species (which is one of the main points of this thread), because the two statements "we are destructive" and "they were more destructive than we are" are not mutually exclusive. Your argument is further weakened by the fact that the extinction event was in the distant past, not the present – we are the main destroyers now.

Your references to other destructive species are essentially the same deal. They are, in fact, significantly weaker than your main argument; needless to say, a species of fungus preying on ants is comparable to our effect on the earth as a hose is comparable to Niagara Falls.

Same deal with locusts and volcanoes. Asteroids are capable of extinction level events, yes, but such asteroids are so rare that their threat to earth is negligible. Modern human civilization has been around for a few thousands years, and industrialized nations have only existed for a few hundred. We have existed for a blink of an eye, yet we have had a hand in killing off more than half of earth's wildlife. Unlike asteroids, we are a clear and present danger.

To summarize this section: the assertion "humans are destructive" stands; in other words, OP is not wrong. Taryn has a legitimate point in arguing that our destructive nature does not necessarily matter, but that does not change the fact that yes, we are destructive.

Now, point two, this time more relevant to Taryn – the human species is destructive to itself. This is mainly drawn from OP's assertions that we are "sucking the earth clean of its resources" and "destroying the environment".

@Taryn unfortunately, you do not appear to address OP's environmental concerns outside of "the Earth does not care". Fine, but you should. A big part of ensuring the advancement of human race is ensuring that we do not destroy what we depend on; we may not necessarily have a "moral obligation" to nature, but we sure as hell have a practical obligation.

@xTSGx

The reality is that peak oil does exist, and is in effect in in 33 of the 48 largest oil-producing countries. Seeing as you retrieved your chart from that very page, you are likely well aware of this.

However, I can't help but notice that you only discussed oil in your post, despite making the statement that "very few" of our resources are in danger. The reality is that we are facing a lack of resources on multiple fronts: "by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity." That's not enough time for us to initiate mass resource harvesting in space, and sure as hell not enough time for us to begin moving human colonies off earth.

You gave more or less a non-rebuttal to OP's point about the environment. A snowball earth isn't necessary to do catastrophic damage to humanity. Global warming is enough.

What we do is no different than what any other animal does, its just that we are the best at it. This one guy said it pretty well. But i can't find his post but it went something like

Humans are not a virus or a parasite, in every animal on the planet the goal is to survive and procreate. Its just humans are the best when it comes to this do to our intelligence and our amazing ability to adapt.

@Particle Mare

As you said, it's impractical, sure, but the practicality of humanity's actions was clearly not the question posed by the OP. Their inclusion of the words "evil" and "scary" lead me to believe that this is a morally-fueled question rather than a practical one, so I replied accordingly.

Even if practicality were in question, the human race being "cleansed" from earth (as proposed by the OP) is the opposite of a practical solution to the human race destroying itself.

How can humans be evil when the very concept "evil" was made up by humans? In nature evil isn't even a real thing.

@Taryn

Fair enough. I suppose the position I'm taking at the moment isn't entirely congruent with either side. The reason I defended OP in my first post was because, frankly, I found TripleA9000's reply to be more objectionable than Kitsune's assertions. Note the disclaimer I placed at the bottom of that post.

Also, 0.9999…=1 has a really good point. A cow does not have the mental capacity to grasp extinction, climate change, resource depletion et cetera. The only reason these things matter – the only reason the universe matters – is because there are intelligent minds around to reflect upon them. As far as we know, that's us.

So no, I don't think humanity should be purged at all. But for goodness sake, don't pretend that we're not wrecking our lifeline here on earth.

You know what else you could call us? Nature's gamble. By the power of our higher intelligence, we can transcend the ultimately meaningless individual struggle for survival and accomplish such amazing feats as escaping our planet's atmosphere and returning alive, and if we last long enough open portals to other universes. Perhaps we could even become gods, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But by the other side of the same token, we can also self-destruct and fuck shit up unlike anything before. Ignoring either of these outcomes gives you a pitifully incomplete picture of what we are. Obviously, it's the former that needs to be brought up here.

I think we're getting away from OP's question, but I'll insert myself into the "human/Earth" debate again just to say this: we really need to worry about how we're going to get of this goddamn planet as soon as possible. Sure, it's been a fairly decent home for the last… ah, let's say two hundred thousand years. It also, however, leaves us as a siting duck just waiting for a big asteroid or solar flair to come on our direction and wipe us out. Oh yes, we're overdue for a mass extinction event around here.
So rev up those Genesis Devices, science.

PArticle Mare said:

Point one – the human species is destructive to others.

Life, itself, is destructive. In order for any animal to live, it needs to kill another organism to obtain energy--whether that organism's a plant or another animal.

Plants can't live without death--the death and decomposition of organisms provides plants with the vital nutrients they need to survive.

because you are drawing your (implied) conclusion “Homo sapiens are not destructive” from the fact that another species was more destructive in the past

>literally implying something that isn't stated
OP's argument is "humans are destructive and evil and should go away." My counterpoint is "humans are animals and plenty of other animals are destructive." The fact that cyanobacteria essentially caused a planetary apocalypse only proves that, not only are other species incredibly destructive to "nature," but that humans haven't even caused anywhere close to the damage some other species have.

…a species of fungus preying on ants is comparable to our effect on the earth…

His point was "humans abuse wildlife." I showed that other species also abuse wildlife. And in many cases, life the fungus, abuse them much worse than we ever have.

You seem to have thought my assertion was that Humans aren't destructive. We are--but so is every other species on Earth.

The reality is that peak oil does exist, and is in effect in in 33 of the 48 largest oil-producing countries.

I am unfortunately unable to view the citation for that due to the fact it's from a book which isn't fully viewable on Google Books. It's from 2005--which means at least one of those countries--the United States--is no longer under "peak oil" per the Hubbert curve.

It's also rather silly to say "33 of the 48 largest" when the top ten oil producers account for 67% of global production and only one of those (Iran) supposedly has hit peak. It's like arguing there's an apple crisis because "32 of the 50 states have slowed apple production" when Michigan, Washington, and Pennsylvania aren't on the list. I say "supposedly," because, as the US has shown, a county can "peak" and then new technology comes along to find new sources of that resource.

That’s not enough time for us to initiate mass resource harvesting in space, and sure as hell not enough time for us to begin moving human colonies off earth.

Water desalination's been a thing since 1791. Yes, it's relatively expensive now (and isn't like it was in 1791), but we don't need to develop FTL drives to solve our water issues--we can do it with current technologies.

Helium's the only resource I can think of off the top of my head that we're going to have serious issues with in the immediate future as 1) we cannot currently synthetically produce it and 2) it has very important applications (cooling magnets for MRIs and particle accelerators) that are not easily replaced with other resources.

0.9999…=1 said:

we really need to worry about how we’re going to get of this goddamn planet as soon as possible

I really think we should more focus on figuring out FTL before worrying about space ships. A cloud city over Venus and colony on Mars are all fine and dandy, but if we want to really do anything in space we need to figure out how to get out of the solar system.

@xTSGx

I will now introduce the aspect of evil. Like I said, due to our intelligence, the human species is the only species capable of comprehending – and being – evil, just as we are the only species capable of comprehending – and appreciating – beauty, and so on.

In order for any animal to live, it needs to kill another organism to obtain energy

But we're not like that, are we? Certainly, there are many ways in which our destruction of animal life is comparable to the nature of other predators. But there are also many ways in which we go above and beyond that – habitat destruction, for example. We are the only force on earth that does this consciously, frequently, systematically, and in many ways, unnecessarily.

humans haven’t even caused anywhere close to the damage some other species have

other species also abuse wildlife

This is where the concept of evil comes in. If a small famine occurs due to environmental phenomena and kills a thousand people, it would be irrational to call any factor in such a scenario "evil"; nature does not "act" with intent to harm, as it cannot possess intent at all. If I blow up a building and kill a dozen people, my actions are inherently more evil than anything nature did in the former scenario, despite the lesser degree of destruction.

See habitat destruction, industrial farming, circuses, everyday abandonment and mistreatment. The difference between us and another species doing something similar is that we are fully aware of the consequences of our (often wholly unnecessary) actions.

Do we necessarily have a moral obligation to be "good"? That's debatable. My point, however, is that you are drawing simple comparisons and conclusions – "they did more damage than we have, therefore the damage we have done is morally tolerable" – when there is a second (and arguably more significant) factor at play. Therefore, your point about cyanobacteria does not hold merit.

peak oil

My point with the statistic is that peak oil is in effect in many parts of world (US oil supply being a statistical outlier), meaning that the biggest oil suppliers – the world supply, by extension – are not invulnerable or out of the potential reach of its effects.

Nonetheless, I will freely admit that the date of global peak oil is extremely muddied and contentious at best, so I will leave this point for now.

water

We "can" solve our water issues with our current technologies. We can also stop being so wasteful with water and turn vegetarian en masse. The problem is that potential does not reflect reality, thus why water is en route to becoming critically scarce within a decade. Water desalination and other potential methods of combating water shortage mean nothing without the funding to make them more efficient and accessible, and at the moment that's simply not happening to the scale required.

Furthermore, there's no guarantee that new methods of acquiring fresh water will be able to replace currently depleting sources: If You Think the Water Crisis Can't Get Worse, Wait Until the Aquifers Are Drained.

Sources such as this one take into account the projected effect of water-collecting technologies. Virtually all of them come to the conclusion that 2/3 of the global population will experience the effects of severe water stress by 2025.

Simply put, the idea of desalination and other such technologies single-handedly holding back the impending water crisis has been accounted for by geoscience and found wanting.

I would also like it if you could address the effects of environmental damage on humanity, global warming in particular. Nature coming back to bite us in the ass is a very real danger.

Are humans evil?

Attempting to generalize the whole human race like that is a revolting waste of our time.

We are not devilspawn. None of us are evil at the very core. Especially when the entire concept of evil is relative, not absolute. We have capability to make evil deeds. But we have capability to make good deeds too. We have capability to destroy, but also capability to create. Human nature is neutral and balanced. The evil comes from induvidual choice.

Now how about we worry less about how evil we are and start thinking of some good things to do to fix that?

This sorta thing is very complex… while, yes, we're capable of being horrible, spiteful beings… We're almost, if not equally, just as capable of being good. I guess it's more of a by-individual case rather than as a species as a whole…

Evil is a HUMAN concept!
When I eat a bar of sodium and die, is the sodium evil? NO
If a rock falls from space and hits a charity worker in the face is the rock evil? No

Evil is only applicable to HUMAN like creatures or concepts. if a cow eats a baby bird the cow isn't evil, but if a human eats a baby bird they can be considered evil.

Evil is a subjective thing, based on individual human beliefs. pick 2 random people from all over the world and chances are they will say something is evil the other says is perfectly fine.

So yes humans are evil by nature, because EVIL is a human concept and creation. evil is something that can only be attributed to humans.

also saying humans are destructive is rather crude, stars can explode and destroy entire solar systems, no matter how much horrible things humanity does to earth it won't ever be as bad as what our sun will do when it starts to die. life destroys life, just how it is.

what humanity should be doing is focusing on escaping the planet, the more humans that show up the more strain we put on the planet, so if we can start safely flying to other planets nature can be left alone once we get the resources we need from space, which has plenty.

this is why people who say "stop funding nasa and help humans or the animals" piss me off.
the best way to help the planet would be getting humanity to spread out and get resources from space, which has ALL humanity could ever need or use.

The Short answer to this question is no, we are not a 'evil and destructive species' because there is no comparison to make to something that is evil and destructive that has similar if not the same technological and social understanding we do now.

Also, it is generalizing arrogant self-pity to assume factors of resource gathering is without calls or acts of preservation and advancing technology.

Humans are a flawed species, not a particularly "evil" one.

@Basilus

what humanity should be doing is focusing on escaping the planet, the more humans that show up the more strain we put on the planet, so if we can start safely flying to other planets nature can be left alone once we get the resources we need from space, which has plenty.

Good fucking luck. We'll end up looking as far as Andromeda before we find a planet as habitable as Earth and realize we have no way of getting there. It's not a matter of finding another planet with water. We gotta consider, gravity, density, atmosphere composition, solar distance, rotation. And if a planet is habitable, lets fucking hope its not already occupied or else…well…you watched District 9 right?

My nerdism over astronomy and space exploration has taught me that Earth is a rare planet.

Chances of finding a world just like Earth? About as low as our chances of making a mass exodus there without killing ourselves en-route which is also about as low as the chance that humanity will get enough of its shit together to pull a stunt like that in the first place

Crashing a few ice asteroids into mars and terraforming it is more feasible and even that's far fetched

What humanity should be doing is learn to manage and sustain what resources we have available on this planet before we squander it all. And also figure out a humane and ethical way of capping our population to an acceptable limit that the Earth can provide for.

And besides, if we flock off to another planet before we figure out the above, we'll just fuck that planet up too….then die from all the alien diseases, like those idiots in War of the Worlds

BSoD, the idea of "rarity" should be taken with a grain of salt when you realize that there are approximately between 10^22 and 10^24 stars in the observable universe. All of our minds are physically incapable of comprehending that number.
Now, let's assume the following things:
1. The lower endpoint of the estimate.
2. An average of one planet per star. Fairly accurate based on current knowledge, and even somewhat conservative.
3. 0.00000000000001% of planets qualify as "close enough" to sustain humanity with only fairly reasonable alterations.
What's the result we get? One million hunks of rock that fit the bill. Not bad. (For anyone that doesn't know, this is a simplified form of a Drake equation thought experiment.)
Of course, most of those are a shit mother-ton-fuck ways away from us. Luckily, theoretical physics today is abound with ideas on how we could technically "break" the ultimate speed limit, and we are closer than ever to making them a reality. So, just like Basilius and I said before, we have to keep working in this scientific field so we can establish an emergency plan of survival for humanity as soon as possible. For the destruction of the Earth, it's not a question of if but when. Sure, it's all "far fetched" now, including terraforming (also a great option), but that's the whole point.
And to go briefly back to the question of "how many", I think your info might be outdated.

I see.

Well I still say that stabilizing Earth is a higher priority than leaving it.

Even at the current rate of discovery, its going to be a long time before we can leave the planet. We shouldn't go around trashing this place and giving up on it just yet, we gotta stay here for a while longer…

In that time we can destroy this planet and our civilization before we get to a point where we can start another. So cleaning up our own act and how we treat the planet comes first

Yes the Earth has a limited span of habitability, but Earth still has some beef on it. It can sustain us for many thousand more years, long enough for us to find a way to get out. But likely more if we are smart with it. Why waste a perfectly good homeworld?

Mare wrote:

See habitat destruction, industrial farming, circuses, everyday abandonment and mistreatment. The difference between us and another species doing something similar is that we are fully aware of the consequences of our (often wholly unnecessary) actions.

Except you're only being a pessimist here, ignoring our resolve after discovering the effects of our actions.

Let me introduce you to the Rebound Effect in conservation and energy economics. That's when humans do something that they initially believed was perfectly ok, only to then later discover it wasn't so save after all. When the actual savings aren't as great as the expected savings.

For example the rising popularity of certain polymers in the past and present. Humans initially thought there was nothing wrong with them, and believed it to be a great material due to its many MANY uses. And let's not mistake it, they are great materials.

But it was later discovered that these same materials were not biodegradable, and that their negative effects on the enviroment caused more damage than we wished for.

Now then, at this point humans could decide to completely ignore the negative consequences, as those consequences only affected the enviroment and not directly humans. Think that for as far as humans could care, the pros outweighted the cons. In the past (think in centuries) we would certainly do this.

But humans didn't ignore it. In the recent decades producers that make common use of polymers have put a great amount of effort in reducing the amount of material they use per product. In the recent years, the research and development to biodegredable and enviroment friendly polymers has seen a humongous rise. Not even talking about the huge rise in recycling.

- Humans unintentionally created a dangerous product which damaged the enviroment.
- Knowing that we kept using it due to the benefits, which can be seen as evil.
- But likewise, humans spend a great amount of research and development in order to make that product less dangerous for the enviroment, which isn't so evil.

Perhaps humans are the only species that knowlingly cause negative effects on the enviroment, but we are also the only species that intentionally put effort in fixing our past mistakes. No animal fixes its mistakes. Humans at least try to fix their unintentional evil, which in the end wasn't something we needed to do as the negative effects didn't affect us.

And this realization that made us wanting to fix our mistakes is something of the recent decades. In the past humans never cared, we destroyed entire species not caring. Nowadays people care. So are humans really evil in this time and age?

Earth can and will recover from pretty much anything but complete annihilation.
Animals have adapted and moved into radiated areas, even if every nuclear weapon was set off all at once, life would just build itself back up, things underground and in the ocean probably wouldn't notice anything went off.

If we could safely leave earth and go to other planets, we greatly reduce the Land, Resources, and strain we put on the planet. You saw what we could go in the 60s if we support space programs and education properly. It only took us a few years to go from here to the moon and back safely. Imagine if we had never given up on the NASA program, if its budget wasn't cut, if we had given the military's budget to nasa, we could have already been to mars or farther, had colonies and deep space mining up.

NASA also creates many technologies that can help the planet, new ways to filter water, better ways to protect against diseases and save lives. Surgeons use a water cooled suit so they can stay focused and calm during surgery, helping save lives, fire fighters use materials created by nasa to safely navigate even the hottest flames. Water filters created by NASA can remove some of the most toxic chemicals and produce safe water.

We need to escape the planet to survive. It doesn't help just humans, but all life on earth. When we don't have to rely on digging into Earth for metals and materials, when we can live above the planet safely, spread life all over the solar system and eventually other planets, then earth will truly be safe and healthy. but until that day, humanity will continue to put pressure on everything around them.

Space Travel is possible and soon, what we need to do, is to properly support education and space programs, so they can find a solution faster, because nothing will have a greater impact for the health of the planet then humanity having the ability to leave, safely.