These comments make me wonder if you even read the article, or just the quote. No where in the article does the author suggest that humans should start killing themselves off. The article isn't about the world being a better place without humans, it's about a hypothetical situation, what the world would be like if humans disappeared. The article isn't about humans being "bad".

The article asks how humans have affected the world, what the mark we would leave behind is, and what impact we've already had.

Another self hating doofus? Believe it or not, human activity does have an impact on the world. Foreign animals are introduced into new ecosystems, forests are cut or burned down, plants and animals are domesticated.

However, unlike some articles which state that humans are destroying the world, this article says that our mark would be almost unnoticeable. If humans disappeared, the world would continue. The end of humans is not the end of the world. You could look around the planet, and find almost nothing that suggested we impacted the world.

Having issues with the conclusions they've drawn is one thing. Argue the science of the matter. But don't argue "the person is stupid for saying the world would be better this way", when they haven't even said it! Judge the article in it's entirety, not on one quote in the beginning. A quote used to introduce the idea of humans disappearing.