I wanted to open this topic after I have read a book named just like this topic: "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. I have heard it was highly praised by critics and I now know why. Weisman's book talks about mankind and how its presence has corrupted nature. It raises some interesting theories that I would like to discuss with you. Before analyzing it, I recommend you read the book... It is the best (without a doubt) book of the year of 2007.

1. Menkind and it's final legacy.

The book imagines a world without humans, a world where nature takes over once again. In the changes that happen we can see the amount of problems we have caused over the years. Global warming, pollution, extinction of animals--all of them closely related... What I find interesting is the resilience of nature that, no matter what, tries to rebuild everything from scratch. The examples are countless: animals thriving near Chernobyl where there are bridges still to hot to cross because of the radiation level. In the Korean Demilitarized Zone, a zone of 5 miles where animals find a refuge since very few men disturb them.



What is truly painful is too see that many of the things we now create will be the first that nature will destroy. The last man made objects to remain on earth (with some exceptions) will in fact be the very first we created. A world without people will revert step by step to the condition it once had before we appeared. It seems that nothing good from mankind will remain. What will outlive us are going to be pollution, the plastics and our deadly nuclear waste. That, together with the radio waves we emit are going to be mankind's final legacy to the universe.

(Something I'm sure you don't know... A common embalming fluid--formaldehyde--oxidizes and becomes formic acid a poison that can reach the water tables... "Careless people, polluting even from the tomb." Weisman says)

2. How to fix our future?

Now that we see the future is very dark for the human species the question rises: Is there anything we can do? (I'd like to hear your comments on the next one) The answer according to Weisman is population control. The idea is that the large number of humans simply need too much resources so no matter what we do nature is going to suffer since it can't (in it's wild state) support such a number of persons.
Weisman interviewed Les Knight, the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (yes this movement does really exist). As the name suggests they what humans decide to stop procreating in the hope that the last generation will enjoy life like never before.

The final part is ended noble and right, but as someone commented on an Internet website, hasn't he seen Children of Men... That is why Weisman gives an alternate future, not as radical but with almost the same results. Why not impose a one child per women policy. You may not know that every 4 days the population of the world increases with a whopping 1 million. And according to the UN around 2050 mankind will number 10 billion people. Far more then our planet can handle. With the one child per women policy by 2075 the world population will be reduced by almoust half to 3.43 billion and by 2100 to 1.6 billion, the level from the 19th century.




Well, I hope you had the time to read the entire post. I look forward to reading your comments.

P.S.: Buy the book. It is really worth the effort, time and money alike!

 

 

 

Reply

A positive action like the one-child policy is seen as an infringement of freedom in most countries. Maybe use passive action like educating about birth control?

Reply

but it wouldn't be very fair to limit anyone to a certain amount of children!

Quite possible you can:
Contact government agency

before, stuff like this led to wars

Reply

I have to agree it wouldn't be very fair, but it must be done - and it must be done fast. When did stuff like this led to war? It is not fair, but I fail to see where is the infringement of freedom. Killing can be considered an infringement of freedom since it doesn't let you do whatever you like, but it protects society from madmen. In the same way (but on a much larger scale) the one child per family policy protects mankind from the danger of overpopulation. Law is something we all agree on for our benefit. Every law is an infringement of freedom by definition. But we acknowledge that infringement for the benefit of a working society. As I see it every problem we now have with global warming is due to the population increase. By 2012 we will be 7 billion people and by 2030 more then 8.2 billion... that is a huge increase which will result in increased requirements for food, fuel, shelter and so on... The only way this requirements can be fulfilled is by burning more oil (until it will run out), genetic engineering plants and farm a lot more. So everything is related more or less to human numbers. A one child per family policy may be hard to impose, but it will mean less pollution and a much better lifestyle.
And on the long run the human race can finally say it has realized what it has done wrong, and that we are in a way self-conscious and in control of our own destiny.

 

 

 

Reply

I'll focus on the first point and that is MANKIND AND IT'S FINAL LEGACY! I can easily imagine a world without us crawling around and making ourselves visible. It is so easy to imagine that because just think about how you look at someone you don't know that dies in a car accident! Yes, it is terrible, it ads to the total number of car accident deaths, but you forget it as soon as you say BLA! That is important to remember, because now use the same thing on yourself to realize how empty your life is if you only hold on to what is around you and in your ego!

And I think we all know that somewhere inside, but the problem is that the first reaction is to make yourself visible so that people will not forget you when you die Now isn't that funny and "I am sorry" wrong! People who wanted to make themselves known and visible created this mess in the world and destroyed our perfect nature and planet! This is why you should think: "Ok, nobody cares about my life except for a few people closest to me, who will also die eventually. So what is there in this life that makes it worth living? The answer is - the sole fact that you can observe the beautiful tree waving in the wind or rain falling down on a rock make it worth living...you should come and go as though you never existed and if you don't want to achieve anything you'll also be happy! And that is the most important thing for everybody isn't it?

So yes, I can imagine a world without everyone...it would be peaceful, calm..and what is most interesting - nobody would notice that we are gone so the question is are we really gone? - nature would still work in the same way as before, because it is calm, it doesn't try to achieve anything...it just IS!

Reply

Sadly mankind actually just destroy the world, we can't say we don't because we just do. Its like... impossible to make the world go back to its natural form (No global warming, pollution...).
If we imagine the world as our body, we would be the viruses that makes it sick. I guess none of us make the world go back to its natural state, all the things we do just makes this world a better place. Limit anyone to a certain amount of children would be a good idea but there is no way that's gonna happen. We are kind of selfish, while we make our lives more fun we provoke global warming, pollution, extinction of animals... Anyway, we are doomed =/

Reply

Too often, I have been at odds with pro-life people every time I make morbid jokes or when I laugh upon hearing a terrible news regarding the loss of human lives. They, too, agree with me that there simply are too many of us humans here but, as my experience taught me, people will always have different ideas, arriving at completely different solutions.

Personally, I repeat, this is just my opinion, I find the Catholic church over here annoying. They are, to me, a meddlesome lot who, in the past, have actively prescribed against the use of contraceptive technologies like condoms, spermicidal cream, intra-uterine devices or vasectomy. Instead, they exhort their parishioners to resort to the rhythm method, which is not a universal solution since some women do have irregular monthly periods. Also, it would also mean that couples "in the mood" will, possibly, have to wait for "a better time of the month" when they could likely have fallen out of the "mood", if you catch my drift.

Too many arguments have been made against the use of contraceptives:
1. The use of contraceptive technologies are unnatural just as eyeglasses, airplanes and cooking food is unnatural.
2. Using contraceptives will promote pre-marital sex in the same way seatbelts encourage people to take to the streets and the invention of fire extinguishers turn people into arsonists.
3. "Natural" intercourse has been around for ages and hasn't changed at all; black people are still slaves, women still cannot vote and there is no such thing as KamaSutra.
4. The objective of intercourse should always be the creation of life, which is why homosexuality, infertility and single people are to be ostracized from society until they "correct" themselves.
5. Sex for pleasure is a sin, thus, God made our mating rituals quite painful. Didja know female mantises decapitate their partners after mating? That's probably the way God intended it to be.
6. Anyone who engages in intercourse should seek to form a functional family, that is, a mother, a father and their children. In other words, there's something wrong with single parents and it is totally wrong to adopt from the orphanages.
7. Contraceptives are not supported by God. As you all know, we may be Catholic, Hindu, Moslem, Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist or Moslem; there are different ways to accepting Jesus Christ as our savior.
8. Taking contraceptive measures is no different from murdering an unborn child. For that reason, men are not allowed to masturbate and women are forbidden to menstruate.
9. To take pleasure in what can only be seen as abortion is a sign of sadism. People in the right frame of masochistic mind would rather have AIDS, herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis or fifteen hungry, neglected children than kill an unborn child that never existed.
10. The Church does not recommend contraceptives and, as we all know, we live in a country under the rule of a clerical government.

Okay, now let us talk about euthanasia and suicide. I'm pretty sure those people have their reasons: depression, insanity, preservation of honor, protesting, whatnot. The way I see it, if they really want to go, let them. Don't we have books about the "art" of letting go? The world could sure do better with less of such people. Those too depressed to function as an element of human society are very welcome to leave. Those who, in their current mental or physical state, also cannot function are more than expected to expire peacefully. Those who, in their minds, have already fulfilled their purpose in life cannot be expected to hang around for nothing; let us allow them a graceful exit. Those who wish to make a point by extinguishing their flame are free to do so... just don't set yourself on fire, we really need all the oxygen we can get. Lastly, those who wish to make a strong point with the death of a thousand or so innocent individuals... don't.

Huh? You may ask why, if I am so much in favor of death, do I have reservations against acts of terrorism? Because I'm not after the complete extinction of the human race. Nature must have some purpose for us, which is why we're here. Only, we have lost sight of that purpose. Did not your gods place you as the stewards of his/her/their creation? Fulfill your duty, human.

I mean, I still have ethics. Let there be death where death is needed by the dying individual, but to prematurely extinguish the lives of other people so needlessly is nothing short of sheer stupidity. Note that this also applies to abortion. I do not support people making babies only to have them scraped off the uterus simply because they made a mistake and forgot to use contraceptives. I do, however, understand that, sometimes, the mother is endangered by her delivery of the child. Sometimes too, the child has no hope of a good life, say, its mother forgot her Rubella vaccination at the time of her conception. To save the life of a much more productive life form, like the mother, one must sever the life of the child. To spare the child of a grim future, sometimes, one must put it to rest.

A villain-turned-good character in the movie, The Incredibles, once said valuing other people's lives is not a weakness. I do agree, to an extent, but let me add that to value human life above all else is nothing more than our hubris as a species.

Reply

Of course the church will never agree that people should stop making a lot of babies. If I remember correctly the Bible says had God, when He created man, said "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it...". I guess we took that too literary. If there is a God (which I don't believe) he must be very disappointed of His children. The church will always like to control many people so less babies means less people to control. The church, like any other institution, is still made out of people. People with the same flows... greed, envy, need for power, etc. ... they might say they are different, but they aren't and they will never be any different then you and me. They simply do a better job of hiding those unwanted feelings.
Beside that there is another reason why nobody will be able to implement a one child per family policy. All our social services require young people to work and supply money for those who are retired. Same story for heath insurance and so on. Any brutal decrees in human population (half in a generation) would result in a total collapse of the social services. There will be a lot of old, needy people and only a few to pay for their support. Any change in our numbers must be done very slow, over a few generations so it wouldn't have catastrophic results in the worlds economy. But today the problems are too great to be resolved over a large period of time. This might be a one way road, a road that takes us to our doom.

I'd like to talk our an idea (might even be called theory) that is presented in the book I was telling you about ("The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman).
Most of you know that our nearest relative is the chimpanzee with which we share 97,3% of our DNA. But there are 2 types of chimpanzee... the common chimpanzee (Wikipedia) and the bonobo (Wikipedia). The common chimpanzee is our grandfather and it resembles a lot with us. While they are almost as bright as us, being the only animal that uses tools they are also as crude and evil as we are. There are reports of chimps stealing into the territories of other chimp groups, ambush unwary lone males and maul them to death - doing this patiently over months until the territory and females are theirs. Also know is the fact that in the common chimpanzee society there are great blood battles to determine the alpha male, battles which remind us of our own power struggles. On the other hand, it's less successful brother, the bonobo (only 10 000 remain compared to 150 000 common chimps) have a matriarchal society and a peaceful nature. They use sexual intercourse as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. Although they defend their territory, no intergroup killings have been observed. According to Weisman the bonobo have been mythologized among those who insistently hope that the meek might yet inherit the Earth.
In this spirit he states the following theory... During the last ice age, with all the water being frozen in ice the vast forests of Africa run dry and only patches of forests remained. So our ancestors, the chimps, were forced to leave the forests in the search for food and so became bipedal and evolved further into us. With global warming and our extinction, there will come another ice age - the african forests will once again go dry and maybe some other ape with have the courage and the need to get out of the trees and head to the plain ground becoming bipedal and following the same steps our ancestors once took. Imagine the offspring's of the peaceful bonobo building their own better society. It is far fetched, but I guess we were also far fetched back when the dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

Hope I didn't bore you to death. Comments are welcome!

Reply

there was actualy a special on history channel that was basicly about what could happen to the earth if people just disapeared i did not see it but i saw some clips on MSN Vidoes and some of the ideas they sugested where crazy but realy cool.

CHECK IT HERE: http://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people

Reply

We are not required in this world! God intended us to keep the animals in order, he made us so that we may flourish and govern the planet, to live among the animals in peace.

But before God even realised... we have sinned because of our own greed and curiosity!

Like I said on several other topics

We were only made to keep the animals in order, but do we? No! The animals were fine. We think too highly of ourselves, how would you like it if... Bonobos evolved to a species of a lot more brain power than us and considered us... "Inferior" and kept us in captivity cages, and hunted us for our skins and flesh? We wouldn't like that at all, would we?

We are slowly killing the world, if we continue to do this to the planet, Earth would die. But we would not just allow us to die... Because of our greed, we would take the Earth with us. If we don't get to have Earth... Then No one would! Not even the ants!

We should NOT value our lives more than the other animals, they are equal to us, if one species go down, more will go down with them. The Earth is now in a runaway decline, there is almost nothing humans can do. We think that we are so superior to the animals, but what is bonobos evolved to a much higher state than us?

What will we think then? We will be power hungry and demand dominion over the world, we will rise up and kill every bonobo there is in this world!

The world without us would be a much better place, we are like salt being spread over fertile soil. Wherever we go, we will destroy that places' natural beauty and ruin it with out greediness, corruption, power hungriness, and much more evil deeds.

We are truly the undoing of Earth.

We are just another type of animal! Why should we see ourselves as more superior than the other animals? We hunt them down, skin them alive, kill them so that we may survive, but doing that would mean just for our continued survival, we are even INCREASING the chance that we will die because of our own efforts to save ourselves.

Why do we take nature for granted? No matter how high our technology is, how high it will become, we still cannot control nature... Why would we go hunting down endagered animals that are on the verge of extincting just so we could eat them? Why would we hunt down animals to extinction just because "Their fur looks pretty on my wife" why? Why do we do that? Would we like it is animals skinned us alive and started eating us? No, I think not...

Reply