IIRC, we have already done that !!

I thought it was an interesting article in many respects, especially the section on Pripyat near Chernobyl. It led me to Google more information on the subject.

Regarding humans being natural, I think that we're quite natural and by extension so are our actions. Therefore and along that line of thought, we as a species will eventually bow to the laws of nature. Once an organism overextends itself and outstrips its resources or makes the environment inhospitable to itself, it moves on or dies off. That's nature. That's us. The difference, I believe, is that it will eventually be up to us to decide whether we move on or die off entirely.

Nothing continues on in an upward manner in perpetuity. The best we can hope for is a balance and I fear few of us are truly striving for that, myself included. Also, there are not too many forces out there keeping us wholly in check.

The difference between human beings and other natural species is the capacity of understanding, the ability to imagine the possibilities and theorize about an action's consequences. Just as it is natural for us to think, so too is it natural for us to act on our more primal instincts to consume, multiply and be concerned only for ourselves. Unfortunately and to our own detriment, it often feels that the primal takes precedence over all else in our lives.

It could be argued that in our capacity of understanding and imagination we can often be wrong, but it seems to me that a "better safe than sorry" approach might be a good course of action until the outcome can be known. The ETS forums are concerned with the "what ifs" even though a good portion of us prepare for things that may never happen. I mean, I carry a PSK with me when I'm out even though I rarely stray further than a days walk back to my home, and there are innumerable options between here and whatever theoretical trouble spot I find myself in.

It can also be argued that our abilities have gotten us out of situations that we did not see coming, but I don't know how long it is reasonable to expect that we can do so as we progress.

On invasive species and their impact on different environments, human beings are an invasive species in many respects. We've gone beyond our natural habitat because our natural ability to think has given us the capabilities to move beyond those regions. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing it just means that we can work faster than evolution and outpace natural balance. So, I think we have to artificially limit ourselves.

On the world being better off without humans, that could go either way, but there are some areas of thought on how we can help an environment grow even stronger than it could in its natural state. A collective name for this endeavor escapes me at the moment, but if you're interested in the subject, look up "Native American Forestry" or "Tribal Forestry".

When it comes to thoughts about humans having an impact on the environment, I am left with little doubt at this point. During the day I can walk into a city and feel the heat trapped in and reflected off of all of the concrete, and then travel to a forest 20 miles away shortly afterward and easily feel the difference in a lower temperature. I could then return to that same city at night and feel heat being released from what was gathered during the day, and once more go back to the forest and actually get a chill because of the wide temperature swing. If we can trap that kind of heat in an area with concrete I don't feel it's a stretch to think we can trap heat on a larger scale with a combination of things including greenhouse gasses. I realize that it's two different effects happening, but that we may very well be the common denominator in the equation.

I'm not bashing human beings at all. We've done some spectacular things. However, I'm not saying we're perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that we are inherently bad, but rather that we can do bad things from time to time.

As always, I could be wrong.

IIRC, I didn't think that humanity's footprint is that significant. Most of our impact would be on the surface (or a few miles below) with little or no effect upon the crust, mantle or core. Seems to me that this rock orbiting an average star would survive quite well on its own, with or without us.

Now, blowing the planet into atoms, courtesy of Lex Luthor, Dr. No, Blofeld, Dr. Evil, Marvin the Martian, et al, would be significant

Hmmm, interesting statement. What would you define as mankind's "natural habitat"? The African plains? Anywhere that "cavemen" lived? Anywhere on the planet mankind can survive using stone tools and animal skins?

It seems to me our natural habitats are anywhere but underwater, mountain tops and maybe Antartica (though I think Inuits could probably make a go there...).

I always laugh when people talk about mankind being the only ones who poison their own environment. It shows the person has no scientific background. Yeastkind will multiply over an over until they kill themselves and every other living thing off with their own pee. Then we drink the resulting chemical wasteland after a hard day's work (beer/wine/hard liquor).

Another example? The original blue-green algae. Before they appeared Earth's atmosphere had very little oxygen. Over the course of time these algae produced enough oxygen to trigger a massive self-extinction.

True, mankind has the ability to reason and therefore should be able to avoid this same fate. You know what? Very smart people are working on the problem. Some are looking at ways to reduce waste. Some are looking at ways to escape the planet. I have complete faith in mankind's ability to come up with a valid technological solution to the problems we face. Heck, the fact that the oil industry saved the whales from extinction is proof of that.

What, you didn't know that? Remember reading "Moby Dick" in high school? People used to hunt whales for the oil they contained. This oil was burned in lamps and lubricated machinery. Eventually the number of whales was reduced to a handful and everyone panicked that "Peak Whale Oil" had occurred and now we were all headed back to the dark ages. Luckily a guy figured out the black goo seeping out of the ground in Pennsylvainia and Ohio could be refined into lamp oil and lubricants. Overnight whale oil was replaced by "rock oil" and the whales were left to repopulate the oceans.

Mankind is smart. A lot of times it may not seem so, but it is.

-Blast

p.s. Besides, at the risk of sounding egocentric, what use is a world if there's no sentient life to admire it? Rocks/plants/cats don't care or notice that they exist.

"Peak Whale Oil"

Do zombies or pirates use recipes? Are the special recipes for zombie dogs? Are zombies color-blind? If not, are there colors they avoid or are attracted towards - but only if they are carbon-neutral colors?

The petroleum oil industry didn't save the whales from extinction as the majority of the worlds whale species were already on the brink of extinction by the turn of the 20th century. The petroluem oil industry had been established for 50 years before this near extinction point. Whaling just became economically non viable simply because the whale fisheries had been fished out. Whaling continued throughout the 1st half of the 20th century and expanded considerably after the 2nd world war after the whale population began to recover.

What saved the worlds whale species was international agreements not to continue exploiting the worlds fishery through pressure from environmentalists during the 1960s and early 1970's. The petroluem industry had now been established for over 100 years. The worlds whale fisheries again collapsed during the 1970s.

What is a human being's natural habitat?

It's kind of a conundrum to me.

With what we are able to do with our minds, and the technology that has come from them, we've made almost every part of the surface of this planet livable to some extent. There are stations in Antarctica that are manned year round and that have had some scientists living in them for well over 2 years at a time. We have submarines and under water stations that can be manned in a similar way. I would also suspect it's possible to live on mountaintops with our current capabilities. All of these are only a matter of trucking the right resources to the right spot for resupply or taking the spot to the supplies as the case may be.

Viability of a habitat at this point is only limited by the effort and expense that can go into starting it and what can be allowed to keep it going, I guess. So, it may be that our natural habitat is only an area into which it's viable to keep the resources of survival flowing if those resources can't be found in the area naturally. Of course that may fluctuate over time and through different circumstances in all areas.

Very interesting! Thanks for that!

No sentient life might mean there are no cats but lots of humans. Just ask them, they'll tell you. :P