Would nature heal without any humans around to destroy habitats? Like a total extinction

Would nature heal without any humans around to destroy habitats? Like a total extinction

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    ?
    were you around for when there were less people in the streets and cars on the road during covid?
    Animals began returning to towns and cities in weeks
    Have you never seen a house that hasn't been cared for or lived in in years? It basically becomes a part of whatever consumed it, then returns to it
    This, but on the scale of all of human creation, upon all of earth.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      So are humans part of nature if we're still on top of it?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        we are a part of nature, everything is a part of nature, we were spawned from nature and everything that we have accomplished has happened within the framework of her laws. We have dumped most of our entropy points into intelligence, this has caused us to progress to a point technologically that a distinction can be drawn between the "natural" and "unnatural". Us being a product of nature, all that we do is natural, but these words and definitions exist to convey a meaning, and they do a very good job at it, dont worry too much about the semantics of it all.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >we're still on top
        kek

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          aliens wouldnt win against humans in total war

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    depends what sort of timescale you're considering. Nature would "heal", new species would evolve to fill the niches previously occupied by animals that we have killed off, much of the habitat destroyed to clear way for farms and residential areas would be retaken by nature, etc, but this would take hundreds of thousands of years. The only way that nature will "heal" within any sort of time scale appreciable from the perspective of a human is with motivated and sustained human intervention. Please ask any questions you have, I am a conservationist, im on a holiday that I thought I'd enjoy, instead I'm drunk alone at 2am bored out of my mind.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Is human intervention unnatural by it's advanced techological nature? There couldn't have been a billion cows without humans

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Is human intervention unnatural by it's advanced techological nature?
        I'd say so, yes. Again, in a way everything that we do could be considered "natural", but with what the term "unnatural" is considered to mean in this context, all human activity with the intention or potential to permanently alter the ecology of an area is definitely unnatural in my opinion. That said, if you consider any of the changes we make towards the restoration of our remaining wilderness as "unnatural", you would also have to consider the activity that lead to the destruction of those areas in the first place as at leastequally unnatural.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Any books you would recommend. I'm interested in conservationist and how civil engineering/planning can be mire in tune with nature

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No, because nature is not harmed.
    There is no such thing as healing nature. At most you heal the air you breathe.
    Nature just adapts. If the entire world was leveled by dirty bombs, in two generations nature would adapt, with new mutated species emerging. Nature does not care what men is doing, and all the talk about "nature" is actually men disguising egocentrism as altruism.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      are you the guy I got into that argument about feral cats with a few months ago? if so I enjoyed that, was pretty upset when the thread 404d, despite our difference of opinion it was a very good conversation, made me consider views I hadn't before.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I think the confusion stems from the words we use. "Diseases" and "healing" are terms we use on human health, it's not something you can simply overlay on a forest and pretend you can even compare both properly. So "nature is healing" is lacking any specification as to what it refers to. Is it the air getting less polluted? Is it animals not getting intoxicated? The list goes on forever.

      With that said, if humanity suddenly disappeared, certain sectors of the natural world would merely continue from what we already started there. Example: invasive species won't suddenly all die out once humans are gone, so don't expect pine forests to stop growing over what should be native areas. Pollution might decrease drastically if we consider the daily releases of gas, fertilizers, hormones, etc., but I expect at some point certain degraded facilities might eventually expose what would usually be contained within them, due to lack of maintenance. So nothing would be preventing a wild animal from entering a chemistry lab, making a nest right next to some fixating or volatile substance, and accidentally spilling it. However, if we're referring to deforestation, trash accumulation, that same daily pollution, hunt of vulnerable species, overstimulation of cow populations, etc., then yes, nature would certainly be less impacted than if humans remained acting. But again: once we destabilize an ecosystem, don't expect it to go back to its former balanced state by itself.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Heal?

    It would attain a new equilibrium, as it has after past cataclysms. Nature is dynamic, constantly changing. Much of the 'wound' inflicted by humankind in the modern age is due to the delusion that we can create something static and unchanging in a world predicated upon cycles. Life itself is predicated on constant flux. Progress as humans imagine it is a growing desolation, imagined to have no end, as compared to the constant renewal and change that is capital L Life.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Humans are nature.
    When people say they want to save nature they mean save it for humanity not for nature excluding humans,except some of the morons obviously.
    Nature created us. Removing us would be like cutting off the entire leg to fix a rotting toe

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Humans are natural, but they are not nature.

      Humans, despite being natural, are rather alienated from nature by and large, and modernity has a particularly antagonistic relationship to the natural order and natural cycles. There's no doubt who'll win that struggle, but its a particularly tragic folly that's played out time and again.

      Something to think about when you're back to picking lice from each other's scalps in a couple of years. 😉

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Would nature heal without any humans around to destroy habitats? Like a total extinction
    Look at how life treats other life in this world.

    Nature treats itself like shit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Does it now? huh

      I bet you watched yourself some Animal Planet at an impressionable age. Pity, that.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    On one hand humans are arguably part of nature. On the other hand, "invasive species" are real phenomena in nature, and invasive species often disrupt the balance of the areas they invade to varying degrees. We humans sure are behaving like an invasive species on this planet with all soil we're fricking up and the microplastics we're leaking into the ocean and shit. There's nothing quite like us here, and I'm not even saying we're the top of the food chain. As for whether the world would "heal" without us, I'd say there would at least be less synthetic garbage in our oceans, and that would arguably count as a "healing". Whether the world would be "better" is a separate issue entirely because I don't think we were always like this. Unless our origins are from Mars or something, it's hard to argue against our right to strive here. Either way we've got shit to fix and habits to break.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No

    Also predatory animals being vilified for eating other animals is dumb, they're just following their instincts. No need to project morality onto animals.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The ironic thing is that nature needs humans around in order to define what "healing" means
    Nature will continue no matter what we do. Is nature suddenly "irreparably damaged" if earth is destroyed? This is also nature just taking nature's course. Nature will be nature no matter what we do.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *