> Does the environment need humans or would it be better off without us?

Does the environment need humans or would it be better off without us?

Posted at: 2015-03-12 
"Better" is a subjective term. Better in what way? Better for what? Better for whom? Is a rainforest better than a desert? Rainforests have more diversity. But if you are a camel you would not be comfortable in a rain forest. Those are just different environments. To say one is better than the other is subjective and meaningless unless you specify what you are basing the judgement on.

The environment continues with or without humans. Without humans it will be different [No humans and then soon no domestic animals/plants, just their feral descendants etc]. But an environment will still be there.

Usually when we talk about a +ve or -ve change to the environment we are relating it to us. If we mess up the climate, it will make life harder for US. The environment will still be there just different. Climate will still be climate, just different.

A bit like if you live in a nice solid house and instead of using the toilet you start using the kitchen floor. The house will still be there but you may find that it is no longer a nice place to live.

This is a meaning less question. But I think the answer to what you mean is no.

The kind of environment you mean i.e. one suitable for the animals other than us would have probably been more stable without us.

After all it was doing "OK" without us for 1/2 billion years before we came along, give or take a few ice ages and other "disasters" out of the blue about which we couldn't have done anything anyway.

There are too many us affecting the earth's environment disproportionately in ratio to our size and basic needs. Off course our lives would be miserable without our technological constructs like it is for other animals fighting it out along the path of evolution.

I don't think there has been much research done on global effects of any other species other than us. Human are probably the only specie who have managed to affect the global environment is such a short time and dramatic way, e.g: like introducing alien species to otherwise relatively isolated regions, e.g. mice in Australia, or American grey squirrel or minx in Europe disturbing the existing balance. Off course this kind of thing could have happened without us as well but probably not so frequently.

I still don't see any value in your question and therefore in my answer for that matter. We are here and if we weren't it wouldn't have mattered what would have happened to the earth or Universe for that matter. Like the proverbial tree falling in the forest.

I think you need to find out what you really want to know first.

Earth, and all it's life existence has been created to support each system, and maintain its equilibrium.

Human beings has the highest intelligence in all species, a part of the biodiversity that maintain its equilibrium.

Industrialization (greenhouse effect) deforestation are some few that is a concern that mitigates an ecological dysfunction.

It neither needs nor does not need us. We are here so it adapts to us. There are certain things that will go away because of us but there will be other things that would never have come along if we had not been here. It can't really be known because everything just is.

Well I hope that in the future mankind will evolve and develop so that we will be able to protect our earth from disaster, like divert an incoming asteroid or something.

Better off for whom?