What do humans bring to the table?

[GreyCarpet]

Just a musing. Would be interesred ro hear others thoughts. What am I missing?

I was thinking this morning about a man I met a few years ago who was brought up in a small village near Chernobyl. He had been back to visit with his wife the previous year. The village had obviously been evacuated after the disaster in 1986 and the photos he showed me were really eerie. Abandoned houses with picnic tables set up outside almost untouched by the passing of time without human interference with one exception. Nature had returned and was thriving. The area was filled with lush green plants. Animals had returned.

Anyway, it just got me thinking about what humans actually bring to the table.

We know that every other creature interacts and operates within a delicate ecosystem. They manage and control their own populations when left to their own devices, land is fertile and plants grow etc

What do we bring to the table? As a species, everything we do is for our own benefit. The world would thrive without us here.

Why do we assume such authority when, we deliver so little?

You rock on with glycophosphate and your way of doing things. Fuck the smallest creatures for shits and giggles.

Gives this whole thread meaning - it was written especially for you.

🐝 😔 ⚰️

Look at all the nihilists rallying to the trumpet call from OP, who probably a bot or a troll. Too much misery thinking leaves you hopeless and disempowered. Who does that serve?

those of you who are concerned about bees and trees, do you have a hive? Are you planting seeds? There’s lots you can do other than complain and hand wring.

I’m not sure any life form is there to help others. They have simply evolved so that relationships between every creature is beneficial to themselves in some way. Flowers evolved to take advantage of bees who wanted to eat their pollen, for example.

We are a unique because we are a top predator but also a highly social species. Most top predators are solitary or in small family groups because they need to find enough prey to survive. We haven’t got the physical strength so evolved to help eachother survive and used our skills to make tools and everything since to make our lives more comfortable and secure.

We help animals as well as ourselves with our medical skills. We have learned so much about how things work and a good proportion of the species want to help the Earth and its inhabitants rather than destroy them but we are all constrained by our social systems too.

those of you who are concerned about bees and trees, do you have a hive? Are you planting seeds? There’s lots you can do other than complain and hand wring.

I plant seeds. We are in the process of creating a bee-friendly lawn full of clover, daisies, and buttercups. I also try to plant as many bee-friendly perennials as I can. I don't have a hive because I don't have the time or expertise to properly care for one but it is something I'd consider taking up when I retire. Who wouldn't want free organic honey if they had the time?

OK @VeniVidiWeeWee I've finally bitten. I don't imagine your life is so incredibly empty that you genuinely find this coincidence so fascinating that it is consuming so much of your thoughts and time, so what exactly is it that is bothering you about it?

Wow missing my point to massive degree there. As I already said I'm a very environmentally conscious person. In fact the reason I missed the existence of the saying "no bees no trees no life" is that I usually distance myself from online content about environmental issues because I used to be anxious about global warming to the point of mental breakdown and I don't want to set myself off again.
I care massively about bees and ecosystem collapse. But I care about them because I care about the fate of humanity. And also because animals are nice and it's sad when they go extinct. But if humans weren't there to observe this stuff I wouldn't say it mattered at all. I don't care about bees for their own sake, they only live for a matter of months. Each bee will die very soon no matter what the cause. If there was only one beehive left on earth the bees inside it wouldn't be aware they were the last hive. Seriously bees do not give a shit about becoming extinct. I care about it because it affects people.

I'd say those of us who are concerned about the negative impact of human activity on the planet are the opposite of being nihilistic. It's precisely because we do value life and feel strongly about our duty of care to the planet that we feel so concerned about the way many humans are treating our world. We may also feel overwhelmed by the fact that scientists believe climate change is at the point of being irreversible. However, it doesn't stop me, or the people I know in real life, from doing the small things that are within our control. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think 90% of posters on the thread have missed the point. OP didn't ask if should humanity be destroyed. She asked what humanity brings to the ecosystem.

The answer to that can only ever be destruction and death. Anything good we are bringing now is an effort to undo the damage we have done in the past.

Bees pollinate, flies aid with decomposition, and predators control the numbers of herd animals, etc. Humanity offers nothing positive to the balance of the ecosystem.

I don't believe humans are inherently evil. I do believe on an individual level the majority of us do care and do want to make a positive impact but as a whole, we are greedy, arrogant, and destructive. We have caused unfathomable and possibly irreparable damage to the planet and we have been directly responsible for the extinction of multiple species.

Does that mean we should be exterminated? No, not imo, at least anyway. But we do need to recognise and accept the damage humanity as a whole caused and we need to learn from it.

You cannot deny that if we ceased to exist the planet would be better for it.

Not the point of the thread really, but it blows my mind that other human species existed yet only homosapiens survived. So many of the attributes we say are 'human' may not be the case with other humans, who knows what they would have done if they survived. Maybe they didn't seek power and destruction like we do, maybe they wouldn't have a patriarchy, maybe they wouldn't appreciate art and music, maybe they were a million times more brutal and we are a much gentler kinder species. Its mind boggling to think of

One person's nihilist, another's realist.

Funny how any call to take real responsibility for the mess we are in, is so often followed up with straight up denial and/or placing the blame elsewhere; or a shot between the eyes delivered to the messenger.

Bot or not. The OP has a point - clearly makes you uncomfortable. Humans are solely responsible for fucking up this planet - the OP wanted to know what we contribute and the answer is nothing.

If you think otherwise you might be the nihilist.

I just think it's a total fallacy of a question in the first place. What does it mean to "contribute" to an ecosystem? Existing within it, and if you were removed then things would change. It's the same for every species including humans. You remove wasps from the ecosystem and a lot of things would change. Maybe aphids would proliferate, plants they eat would die more easily, then maybe aphids would reduce again or maybe ladybirds would proliferate and fill the void? None of this is good or bad though overall. "Contributing" to an ecosystem isn't inherently positive, it just is. Humans are also part of the ecosystem too because if we were removed the changes to the ecosystem would be absolutely enormous.

We know that every other creature interacts and operates within a delicate ecosystem. They manage and control their own populations when left to their own devices, land is fertile and plants grow etc

And you’re writing this in Britain are you, a land which was stripped almost bare by the ice ages and whose ecological development ever since has been hand over hand with humans. 🫠Ecosystems are not fixed: they flex and change naturally as different populations move up and down.

Using traditional sustainable methods humans can maintain different ecosystems which benefit different plant communities. Clearing forests allowed many small plants to flourish that otherwise would not. We can keep such things in balance in non-marginal lands, and even in more marginal lands it was managed for thousands of years until salination kicked in.

The big current issues are unprecedented overpopulation causing huge levels of ecological destruction: and the current speed of movement that we’re causing of fauna and flora, moving species across and all round the globe in a couple of hours. And climate change, much of which is caused by those same unnecessary levels of transportation (thinking globalised supply issues as much as or more than people movements).

Other populations of animals do not ‘manage their population’ levels, the ecosystem does it for them when their food vanished. This has happened to humans before, many times, and will happen again: probably quite soon. We do have the capability to manage our own population now, having achieved that only in the last 60-70 years, but too many are not availing themselves of that. Plus the laws of unexpected consequences are in action.

Thats a very short summary of ecology in action!

Thank you.

Yes, this was my starting point.

I wasn't asking 'what separates us from the other animals on the planet' because the ability to create art, literature and music, science and technology is obvious.

But in areas where there is little human activity, or where humans live in harmony with the rest of nature, nature thrives and flourishes.

It's not other species chopping down ancient trees and destroying habitats to build train tracks or paving over land or putting down fake grass because real grass is just too 'natural'.

It's more that we could achieve all the things we do whilst respecting nature and working with it. But we don't. We take and take and take until there's nothing left to take and then we move on and repeat.

It's not other species polluting the seas with microplastics; other species aren't responsible for destroying habitats etc.

I wasn't suggesting that people are evil and should be destroyed and that the rest of nature is benign. Nature is, and will continue to be, cruel (to human sensibilities) but its not willful.

It could have been so different.

I agree that too many are putting down fake grass, for instance. Gardens in the U.K. are actually a huge habitat, or were: perhaps they’re a good example of ‘what we can do for the planet’. As our population has grown, we’ve created industrialised society which has isolated so many from the realities of the land, both in poverty and in wealth.

Other species do act as ‘ecosystem engineers’ in other habitats: it’s why people want to re-establish beavers for instance. The issue is numbers, and as a pp said, factory farming has a lot of answering to do.

We can reflect on these things and change our actions to some degree, this is what economics and government are there for. We are in a race against time (which we’re losing in my view) to undo past consequences of change without knowledge.

Ecology needs to be our first science going forwards.

Thank you.

I agree with this so much.

@Tumbleweed101

Your examples of other species contributing to and supporting the ecosystem (bees pollinating flowers for example) exactly proves the point of this post. Humans offer nothing.

As for using medical skills to "help" animals. Well, yes we do but only to undoe the damage we have caused in the first place or because we have created the need for medical intervention (such as farming). The occasional altruistic deed pales into shivering insignificance compared to our usage of other species for greed, sport, food or the sheer pleasure of torturing them.

The point of this post, imo anyway, is to encourage people to think outside the box. We are conditioned to believe that our importance on the planet is worthy, good, justified and beyond of question. Those who do question it are clearly cranky, unbalanced. We are told that in the whole scheme of things we are superior to a wasp. But, discounting the notion that we were created by God, please ask yourself if we are more important than a wasp. The answer from a practical point of view is a resounding no.

I would happily sacrifice myself, I am almost 50 and as a relatively privileged person raised in Western Europe have already taken more than my share of the earth's resources. As for my children, that would be their choice to make, not mine.

@theleafandnotthetree

Deeply sinister sentiments there about sacrificing yourself and seeing half the population eliminated. Who would decide who is worthy? Matt Hancock? Kim Jong Un? Chris Packham? Roger Hallam?

Has nobody learned anything from 20th Century history. Human life matters and individuals should not be seen as a scourge just because you don’t like the effects of us living our lives.

As for using medical skills to "help" animals. Well, yes we do but only to undoe the damage we have caused in the first place or because we have created the need for medical intervention

Erm, no. Gerald Durrell wrote on this. The natural state of other animals can be wretched, filled with parasites. You can say that they are a needed part of an ecosystem, but I’m not volunteering as a host, let’s put it that way. We do domesticate other animals and have even altered their ‘natural’ evolution. Is this good, bad, or just part of the system? I’d say the latter. You could argue that domestication, traditionally (emphasise that) is a sign that we’re doing other animals some good. Cats, dogs, horses want to stay with us.

Another good read is ‘Europe: the first 100 million years’ by Tim Flannery.

Well as an individual human, it would be my choice surely. As staying alive or otherwise always is! Nothing sinister about it. I am nothing special at all and in the context of the OP, I do indeed only take from the planet, even if I contribute a little to my own species. In brutal terms I am in fact no more important than the cow whose milk feeds me, the bee who polinates the plants, etc. But MY impacts are overwhelmingly negative.

I don't know much about cats and horses but no one who knows dogs could reasonably argue that our interference with their evolution has benefitted them. Most of them are horrifically deformed to the point that they cannot breathe or live in constant pain. They can no longer communicate effectively with each other leading to unnatural, and often aggressive, interactions between them. What we have done to them for our benefit is nothing short of torture.

@theleafandnotthetree take your argument to its logical conclusion and you would close all the hospitals and care homes. Why bother keeping people alive? No famine or earthquake relief. No food banks, no benefits, no picking up migrants in the Channel. Next, your despot of choice would be rounding up 50 per cent of us and making us disappear. Not a world I would like to live or die in!

I agree with you@willywallaby. Other animals dont know or care about whether there are only 50 of them left in the world. They care about their next meal, or whether they can find another animal to mate with. If one of those 50 are next to them and they can mate with them, and they have enough food in their immediate vicinity, they are happy. Humans are the only species who have a holistic view of other animals, because we invented communication further than just speech. If, as We are living through the 6the extinction event, because there were 5 before it. The Ice ages wiped almost everything from the planet and, as the OP said, life grew again. In Covid and after Chernobyl, nature took over very quickly. If we become extinct, and take a load of other species with us, we will only be doing what various meteors or other extinction events did in the past. The planet will be absolutely fine with or without us. The only reason to try and preserve the environment is for the benefit of humans, because we want to be able to live and breathe in a decent place, and have food for our children to eat and for them to be able to live amongst wildlife. No other animal cares about looking at other creatures or the survival of anything other than themselves and their own children, until those children are old enough to go out and propogate the species. That's what nature and evolution is. If, as the OP states, humans are nothing but a stain on the Earth, then surely the best thing to do is to go all out burning fossil fuels and make ourselves extinct, because eventually, after a few million years, another life form will become dominant.

@Frequency, not all breeds I think? You’re right about several. Which is exactly why better management is needed, led not by vain rich toffs focusing on fashion-led appearances, but by as much forward-thinking as we can muster.