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?

I am only talking about myself in response to an earlier poster asking would those of us bleating about this be willing to sacrifice ourselves. And I said I would and why.

But again, thinking purely speaking at a species level, our big brain has given us the tools to grow and survive exponentially in a way we never would in a state of nature. My daughter for example would almost certainly be dead in almost any other era from a burst appendix. And if she were a non human mammal, she definitely would be. I'm not saying the alternative, where we effectively allow nature to take is course is one I find palatable or would want but from.a planetary perspective it would undoubtedly be a net positive for every other species. That is the reality, but I'm not saying I think we should act on it necessarily.

Why does anything that exists on earth have to 'bring something to the table'?? What a strange idea. All life that exists has a right to exist. I actually think we might end up bringing more to the table if we realised that. But at the moment we even treat other humans as tho they have to earn their right to exist. Which is pretty disgusting. We are here. We should try our best to take care of each other and this planet. But our right to exist shouldn't be questioned or else that leads rise to some thinking that we have rights to prevent the existence of or even eradicate the existence of other humans and or animals. I think it might be more beneficial to try to work together to the best of our individual abilities, for the benefit of everyone, than to start pointing the finger about who's bringing what to the table.
All this 'bringing to the table' nonsense has some echoes of fascism to me and I find it alarming

@Angrycat2768

Yes, we are the ONLY species reflecting on the harm we have caused and thinking of ways to solve the problem.

I’m in favour of human rights and treating our fellow humans decently - not seeing them as some sort of parasite.

We live in a world no one person (or animal) created and if we are lucky can do a little to try to protect the environment of the species around us. The view that humans have no value is deeply disturbing with the makings of a horrific dystopia ahead of us.

Eventually it wouldn't be a choice though. Not enough people would make that choice to make any real difference. I am 50, my children are old enough to look after themselves. If I was asked to make a choice to off myself because my fertile days were over and I am evolutionarily useless ( this would only apply to 50 year old women I notice) I would say no. So who do you choose to 'off'? Who makes that choice? Shall we kill off all the Europeans because they use most of the resources? But they aren't having children at replacement level anyway, so will naturally reducing their population. If you kill old Europeans, evolutionarily, they have already procreated so its not much benefit. The greatest 'benefit' comes from killing children in Sub Saharan Africa, as they are a large young population, capable of procreating, and they are also procreating in larger numbers than those in the West. Shall we stop all aid to Africa, stop trying to cure malaria, stop developing famine resistant crops, allow diseases and plagues run wild. Let nature take it s course. I'm sure the peoples of Africa would be willing to take one for the team. No?

@RosaGallica not all of them, no, but most of them, particularly in terms of them being unable to communicate effectively.

Dogs use a lot of body language to communicate their intentions to each other, including facial expression, ear position, tail movement, and posture.

When you look at wolves they are not a solid colour. They have eyebrows, their muzzle is usually lighter than the rest of their face. Their ears are upright and usually tipped or outlined with a darker colour, their tails are long and bushy and again usually accentuated by a variance in colour. All of this aids them in communicating with each other. Any dog who does not have those features is at a disadvantage.

A lot of extreme vegans would like to get rid of pets altogether. Is that better for them as a species? Things are not so clear cut for the individual. My cats may no longer exist just to keep the mice down but they do have a pretty decent life - warm, sheltered, well fed and living to a much older age than if they were feral. It’s something I’ve brought to the table for them! I benefit too.

I didn’t know that detail, that’s interesting thanks (specialist knowledge needed!). They manage communication v well though! There’s a lot out there on how well dogs communicate with humans.

They communicate very well with humans but their communication with each other is stifled by our interference in their genetic makeup. Poor communication is the main cause of aggression and reactivity between dogs.

Most people know of a dog owner who will claim their dog is friendly but "bullied" by other dogs. When you look at them these dogs are usually solid in colour and will have shorter tails and floppier ears than wolves. The dogs who are reactive/bullying towards them are unable to read them effectively and are reacting through fear/uncertainty or misunderstanding the victim dog's intentions.

We can help them overcome this with extensive socialization with a wide variety of breeds from a very young age but sadly a lot of people don't do this. And societal expectations of canine behavior also hinders this. Leads interfere with their ability to communicate but society dictates we must keep them leashed and avoid off-leash interactions with strange dogs. We see growling as bad/aggressive and punish or train this out of them when it's not always aggressive. It is simply another form of communication. It can be aggressive. It can also mean "I am scared" or "I want to play."

Humans are a nasty, vile, destructive species.

The planet would be far better off without us.

The only things I can think of that we 'give back' to the planet are the carbon dioxide we exhale (for the plants) and the waste we excrete (fertiliser for the land and a yummy meal for the bugs!)

But then plenty of other animals do this too.

So no, we bring absolutely nothing to the table.

Yes. A lot of animals only exist in order to facilitate humans. Would pet dogs be able to survive in the wild? Surely only the most docile of dogs evolved from wolves. That docility would get them killed in the wild. Cats, well, what's the pint of them? (Joke- Im a dog person!) They kill birds in huge numbers, even when they are well fed and don't need them for food. As do foxes. Cows, sheep, all farm animals- would they be able to survive without humans? The sheep that was trapped on a cliff had to have her wool cut off because she had grown so many fleeces without human contact. I know some vegans don't think any domesticated animals to exist at all, and if people stopped using animals for food the fact that they would probably soon die out is fine. Which is an honest position, but would mean no more cows, pigs, chickens, cats or dogs eventually because many now cannot live without human intervention.

@haribosmarties

What? We've already eradicated countless species on this planet and vast numbers are still threatened with extinction because of us.

@TorringtonDean Domestic cats and dogs have been deliberately bread by humans over the centuries. They wouldn't be feral because they wouldn't exist. To say that we give them warmth, shelter and food from the goodness of our hearts when we created them in the first place is classic human hypocracy.

@ginasevern yes. That's my point. The attitude that facilitated that is thinking 'what does that bring to the table' rather than 'all life has a right to be here and we should do our best to protect it'
That includes all human life. Because its also the route cause of eugenics 'what does that disabled person bring to the table, what does that indigenous woman's fertility bring to the table?'
We shouldn't be focusing on this question. All living things have a right to be here. Sometimes we may have to kill to defend ourselves or survive in some way.. but generally its horrific to think anything needs to justify its own existence in order to be allowed to live. It facilitates some of the worst things humanity has done. And that includes to each other. I don't know why people think it's OK to talk about human beings like this.

@haribosmarties yes, the Eugenic thinking is strong on this thread. It’s death camp thinking - not thinking outside the box. The hatred for humanity is blatant and sickening.

But the planet isn't a sentient being that can experience happiness or sadness. I think what you mean is that other species would thrive without us here. But why is that preferable to humans thriving?

@AppropriateAdult yes, and many other species will tear you limb from limb without a thought!

What do humans bring to the table?? We brought the table!!

That's not actually true. Most species actively avoid contact with humans. They are not socialised with us. They don't know what we are or what harm we could cause them so they avoid us.

When they do attack it is more often than not to protect their young or territory. It's not for fun or sport. Even sharks, as mentioned earlier in the thread do not kill for the sake of the kill. You can swim peacefully with a great white if it can see you are not a seal. All shark kills can be attributed to mistaken identity or the shark being ill or stranded away from its usual food source.

Very few animals kill for fun. Cats do it because we bred them to hunt and kill small mammals for our benefit. Dolphins are just fucking evil (only half joking). And besides humans, they are the only animals I can think of off the top of my head who kill for fun.

Except we aren't thriving, are we?

Humans were fine for millennia. We existed alongside other animals and didn't do too much to alter the balance one way or the other. Some people live like this still, but not many now.

I'm not saying we go back to that, as PP said people with even simple ailments would die/suffer e.g. short of a simple appendix operation.

I always remember the sheer disbelief expressed by native American Plains people when white hunters were shooting buffalo from trains.

https://blog.nativehope.org/how-the-destruction-of-the-buffalo-impacted-native-americans

Sadly, our progress in science, medicine and our affluent life etc came hand in hand with pollution, waste and exploitation of the environment, people and other animals. Gathering pace during the Victorian era, until here we in in late stage capitalism. Could we no undo the damage? Would we want to sacrifice things for a simpler, less materialistic life (and what?)

I don't think the majority of posters are misanthropists, I think they are realists in terms of our net impact on our planet.

Humans are massively clever (doesn't always show, and sometimes clever to the wrong ends), and it would be ironic if our ability to reason and organise becomes our downfall, I'd say that's tragic really considering our great potential to help solve problems for ourselves and the planet/other species.

To see how tragic this is isn't the same as being a nihilist.

From my point of view, I have a child and I would like him to 'inherit' a beautiful, amazing world that functions well for all.

I take conscious steps towards this, but I do think that the bigger players hold the cards - governments, multinationals etc and the chances of changing those, well I am not confident. They are partying on the good ship Titanic aren't they? And they don't care as long as the bubbly keeps flowing.

If Boris can say Covid is nature's way of killing off the old, god knows - they hold life pretty cheap.

Environmental disaster is nature's way of checking the global population? (Not my view but you can see a politician or two saying that)

Alien score card:

Humans evolved on an excellent planet with access to whatever they needed.
Unfortunately, most humans (particularly those with the power to affect change) did not apply themselves until it was too late.

Unless there are no thinking aliens out there, and we are the only pool of life...
That would be extra tragic.

I do think humans are mostly pretty amazing, actually! I like people.

I take conscious steps towards this, but I do think that the bigger players hold the cards - governments, multinationals etc and the chances of changing those, well I am not confident. They are partying on the good ship Titanic aren't they? And they don't care as long as the bubbly keeps flowing.

I think the notion that only the governments can do enough to make a difference is unhelpful. Obviously, they could make the biggest difference in the shortest space of time but if every individual did just a little bit more it would have a massive impact.

Lawn grass produces more oxygen than trees and also creates habitats for a multitude of insects which then support other wildlife like hedgehogs and birds. If everyone with a garden let their grass grow a little bit longer or dug up their paved-over garden to plant grass that would have a massive impact. And, imo, plastic grass should be banned. It cannot be healthy for rain to filter through masses of dyed green plastic before it becomes groundwater. Not to mention it looks fugly.

Shrubs don't need to be pruned to within an inch of their lives. Let them grow a bit wild. Plant bee-friendly lawns and wildflowers. If you don't have a garden get a couple of planters for your yard and fill them with bee-friendly flowers. If we all did that the effect would be massive. One acre of grass is thought to produce enough oxygen to support 64 people a day.

We are just one part of the evolution of species on our planet, as we have no predators, we our population has grown exponentially. Ultimately, our primary purpose is to reproduce, like every other species. Evolution has no morals, it is not about right and wrong. Eventually we will be surpassed or become extinct and the planet will recover and new species will flourish. And eventually in the long term the planet will no longer exist.

But in evolutionary terms we are thriving, @TwigTheWonderKid - we're completely dominant (to the extent of wiping out other species due to our actions), and have influenced every corner of the globe.

If an asteroid was headed towards Earth, humans have created the technology to spot it coming far in advance, and knock it off course. Rabbits and fish are less helpful in that kind of situation.

In terms of nature I think the role of humans is to think of intelligent solutions to complex problems. On an island with an erupting volcano and need a boat? Go find a human not a goat. Cold in winter? Humans can make fire, electric blankets, radiators… We’re pretty good at growing food and storing it through winter too, and saving and sterilising water to avoid dying in droughts.

There is a fantastic role for humans as stewards/guardians of the rest of the world, but unfortunately we rarely bother.