FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


An earth without humans





saratdear
A question which has been troubling me for some time. What would have happened to the earth had there been no humans? Would it remain all these years as it did before humans came; green and full of life?

Or would there have been another species of animal emerging as the "new" humans? Like...would there have been a bunch of highly intelligent cats sitting in our place and posting on forums on their versions of computer and internet? Laughing
deanhills
Excellent question. Really gets one thinking on this one. Along imagination lines in my case. Probably the blue blooded scientists in the forum can come up with greater specifics, but I seem to remember that at one point the dinosaurs were the leading forces on the planet. If there were no humans right now, possibly there would be a chance for greater balance, those species that are close to extinction would be able to multiply again, such as the silver-backed gorillas and pandas. I would hope that the planet would become more in sync and be able to heal itself from the great damage that has been done by humans with its "technological progress". But to answer the question, I cannot imagine another species replacing humans in a dominant position. Will be interesting to see what others can come up with, especially along scientific lines.
Bikerman
It isn't really possible to give a scientific answer to this one. All we can say from a scientific viewpoint is that the genus homo evolved a high level of intelligence and eventually resulted in us.
What would have happened had the genus homo not evolved into the species homo-sapiens-sapiens? Tricky. There is no reason to suppose that intelligence is inevitable. The dinosaurs managed to be at the top of the 'tree' for millions of years without what we would call intelligence.
Some people take the view that intelligence is an inevitable consequence of evolution (indeed some people go even further and say that intelligence is the inevitable consequence of creation). I don't agree with that viewpoint (although I can see some merit in the argument).
GaryMK
This one makes you think a bit!! I guess one day mankind will bring about his own demise, or if not ourselves then nature will do it for us, another ice-age or something. One thing is for sure though, the Earth will soldier on for billions of years to come and life will re-generate in some form or another.
Another question that rises from this is, if the homo-sapien does exist for millions of years to come - what will the planet look like and what new/evolved powers will mankind have? I wonder!
finekiss
An earth without humans is good but what good is the earth if we do not exist!
It was created because of us humans but we are ungrateful.
Anyway, Look at this picture and remeber to keep earth clean
[/img]
saratdear
deanhills wrote:
Excellent question.


Thank you. Smile

deanhills wrote:

Really gets one thinking on this one. Along imagination lines in my case. Probably the blue blooded scientists in the forum can come up with greater specifics, but I seem to remember that at one point the dinosaurs were the leading forces on the planet. If there were no humans right now, possibly there would be a chance for greater balance, those species that are close to extinction would be able to multiply again, such as the silver-backed gorillas and pandas. I would hope that the planet would become more in sync and be able to heal itself from the great damage that has been done by humans with its "technological progress". But to answer the question, I cannot imagine another species replacing humans in a dominant position. Will be interesting to see what others can come up with, especially along scientific lines


Why could not have another species replaced humans? Actually, what could be the reason that out of the hundreds of species on the earth, only humans evolved with such high intelligence?

Bikerman wrote:

It isn't really possible to give a scientific answer to this one. All we can say from a scientific viewpoint is that the genus homo evolved a high level of intelligence and eventually resulted in us.
What would have happened had the genus homo not evolved into the species homo-sapiens-sapiens? Tricky. There is no reason to suppose that intelligence is inevitable. The dinosaurs managed to be at the top of the 'tree' for millions of years without what we would call intelligence.
Some people take the view that intelligence is an inevitable consequence of evolution (indeed some people go even further and say that intelligence is the inevitable consequence of creation). I don't agree with that viewpoint (although I can see some merit in the argument).

Supposing that humans did evolve, with the basic body structure and all, but without the intelligence, and another species of animal...say tigers evolved with intelligence, would things have happened the other way around? (Like..tigers sitting in our place and doing things we do and keeping humans as pets {like we do with cars and dogs} and declare us as threatened species {like with tigers} )

GaryMK wrote:

This one makes you think a bit!! I guess one day mankind will bring about his own demise, or if not ourselves then nature will do it for us, another ice-age or something. One thing is for sure though, the Earth will soldier on for billions of years to come and life will re-generate in some form or another.
Another question that rises from this is, if the homo-sapien does exist for millions of years to come - what will the planet look like and what new/evolved powers will mankind have? I wonder!

I suppose. And maybe another species will evolve with higher intelligence than us, and recover "fossils" of humans. (scary thought!)

finekiss wrote:

An earth without humans is good but what good is the earth if we do not exist!
It was created because of us humans but we are ungrateful.
Anyway, Look at this picture and remeber to keep earth clean

Are you sure the earth was created for us to exist? The earth was made for us? Isn't it more likely that we evolved into such high intelligence by accident?

Just another question : Could the humans have, by any way, stopped or diverted the evolution of other species who might have evolved into same, or higher intelligence than humans? (as they would have done naturally had there been no humans)
Bikerman
saratdear wrote:
Supposing that humans did evolve, with the basic body structure and all, but without the intelligence, and another species of animal...say tigers evolved with intelligence, would things have happened the other way around? (Like..tigers sitting in our place and doing things we do and keeping humans as pets {like we do with cars and dogs} and declare us as threatened species {like with tigers} )
Yes, I think it is likely. I don't think it is likely that any animal would evolve great intelligence without having hands to manipulate, so I doubt tigers or similar creatures would fit the bill. If we imagine, however, another bipedal animal evolving intelligence, and humans stuck at the intelligence level of (say) an early hominid then, yes, I think it is quite likely that the intelligent species would threaten us in the same way that we threaten less intelligent species. Life is a competitive business. Intelligence gives the ability to overcome predation,and other restrictions on population, and will, I think, inevitably lead to increasing numbers which will, in turn, put pressure on other species...
saratdear
Bikerman wrote:
saratdear wrote:
Supposing that humans did evolve, with the basic body structure and all, but without the intelligence, and another species of animal...say tigers evolved with intelligence, would things have happened the other way around? (Like..tigers sitting in our place and doing things we do and keeping humans as pets {like we do with cars and dogs} and declare us as threatened species {like with tigers} )
Yes, I think it is likely. I don't think it is likely that any animal would evolve great intelligence without having hands to manipulate, so I doubt tigers or similar creatures would fit the bill. If we imagine, however, another bipedal animal evolving intelligence, and humans stuck at the intelligence level of (say) an early hominid then, yes, I think it is quite likely that the intelligent species would threaten us in the same way that we threaten less intelligent species. Life is a competitive business. Intelligence gives the ability to overcome predation,and other restrictions on population, and will, I think, inevitably lead to increasing numbers which will, in turn, put pressure on other species...

Well, thanks for the explanation. It seems weird that it could have been the other way around, but then, we wouldn't have the intelligence to think so.

Edited to add : I hope it is not asking for too much, but if you could try to answer the last question in my last post, I would be happy. Smile
Bikerman
Well, as regards the last question, I think we are on firmer ground here. We can, for example, consider the fate of Homo-Neanderthalis.

The theory goes as follows:
There were two main groups of the genus 'homo' around about 150,000 years ago- Homo-Neanderthalis and Homo-Sapiens. Homo-sapiens came from Africa and gradually migrated to other parts of the world. Homo-Sapiens arrived in Europe around 45,000 years ago (we call the first European Homo-Sapiens 'Cro-Magnon'). Homo-Sapiens and Homo-Neanderthalis lived together for several thousand years but eventually Neanderthalis died out. There are 3 main theories about this;
1) Homo-Sapiens killed-off Neanderthals by out-breeding them and/or by killing them
2) Homo-Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals to produce modern humans
3) Neanderthals evolved into another species and eventually became extinct

Either way, we could say, with some justification, that modern humans were responsible for the disappearance of the Neanderthals (about 25,000 years ago). If Homo-Sapiens had not appeared from Africa, then it is entirely possible that Neanderthals would have continued to evolve and become the dominant species. Interestingly, Neanderthals probably had a larger brain than modern humans...
saratdear
Bikerman wrote:
Well, as regards the last question, I think we are on firmer ground here. We can, for example, consider the fate of Homo-Neanderthalis.

The theory goes as follows:
There were two main groups of the genus 'homo' around about 150,000 years ago- Homo-Neanderthalis and Homo-Sapiens. Homo-sapiens came from Africa and gradually migrated to other parts of the world. Homo-Sapiens arrived in Europe around 45,000 years ago (we call the first European Homo-Sapiens 'Cro-Magnon'). Homo-Sapiens and Homo-Neanderthalis lived together for several thousand years but eventually Neanderthalis died out. There are 3 main theories about this;
1) Homo-Sapiens killed-off Neanderthals by out-breeding them and/or by killing them
2) Homo-Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals to produce modern humans
3) Neanderthals evolved into another species and eventually became extinct

Either way, we could say, with some justification, that modern humans were responsible for the disappearance of the Neanderthals (about 25,000 years ago). If Homo-Sapiens had not appeared from Africa, then it is entirely possible that Neanderthals would have continued to evolve and become the dominant species. Interestingly, Neanderthals probably had a larger brain than modern humans...


Well...thank you! That is quite a lot of information I didn't even know till now.

I found this page - http://www.dentalgain.org/man.html

Does this mean that any of those species could have out-lived the others at that time, and we all would have been a basically different version of humans? So evolution is basically unpredictable, right?

Lol...we are turning away from the original discussion about no humans at all.
barmstonian
saratdear wrote:

Does this mean that any of those species could have out-lived the others at that time, and we all would have been a basically different version of humans? So evolution is basically unpredictable, right?
Lol...we are turning away from the original discussion about no humans at all.


I remember reading somewhere (possibly in a Stephen J Gould book - well worth picking up Wonderful Life as a starting point) that there have quite often been 2 or 3 hominid species around at the same time. In fact, had to check it out... http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

Species survival isn't about which is intrinsically better than the rest, just which happens to be able to cope better with the unpredictable contingencies that come their way. So we were just the lucky ones...

There's a huge overhead (literally) with intelligence - it slows you down (thinking is slower than instinct), takes resources (60% of the body's effort goes to getting blood to the brain and regulating its temperature. Ok, I made that up, but it's quite a lot.) so unless there was some strong adaptive pressure, it's unlikely it would have evolved. Our less thoughtful rivals would have wiped the floor with us.

The most successful creatures are not intelligent - bacteria - and some of the more successful complex creatures (e.g. crocodiles, sharks, been around for 200 million years) aren't all that bright.

Where am I going with this... Ah, I lost my train of thought here... too much Sarsaparilla. I suppose the issue is contingency - you couln't play the tape from any time in the past and get to anything like where we are now....

Although, there is such a thing as convergence... In different, isolated continents and islands, you get completely unrelated species (unless you go back to some primordial fish...) looking and acting almost identical - because evolution has whittled down the species for a particular niche to perfection, from different starting points.

I've said enough...

Laters,
B
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Tricky. There is no reason to suppose that intelligence is inevitable. The dinosaurs managed to be at the top of the 'tree' for millions of years without what we would call intelligence.

Supposedly the raptors were reasonably smart (On the level of modern wolves, perhaps? Far more intelligent than our ancestors at the time, anyway)... It would be interesting to know what they would have evolved into if given more time...

Though, since they were exclusively carnivores, not omnivores, they would be unlikely to ever develop agriculture, which might (or might not) keep them from making the crucial step from nomads to civilizations...

(Yes, I realize I'm dot-dot-dotting you a lot... Sorry.)
Bikerman
I have a problem with this view. I think it gained a lot of credence after Jurassic Park. The idea that the raptors were 'smart' is obviously impossible to confirm or refute empirically. The best we can probably do is look at the EQ score (the Encephalization Quotient is the ratio of brain size to body size).*
Humans have an EQ of around 5. For comparison a wildebeast clocks about 0.68, a capuchin monkey around 2.5, a bottle nose dolphin around 3.5.
Dinosaurs in general are at the bottom end of the EQ range - Triceratops at around 0.11 would have been a really smart 'biggie' with most of the large dinosaurs clocking below 0.1.
The raptors, on this scale, would be around wildebeast scores (0.68 - 0.8 ).
Our ancestors (the early hominids) were probably around 2-3. At the time of the dinosaurs our ancestor was a shrew-like creature which probably had an EQ at least comparable to, probably greater than, the raptors.
* There are a couple of ways of calculating EQ - the scores above are non-normalised. An alternative system normalises the score against a mean value for living creatures of 1. On that system humans come in around 7.6.
pebbleworm
saratdear wrote:
A question which has been troubling me for some time. What would have happened to the earth had there been no humans? Would it remain all these years as it did before humans came; green and full of life?

Or would there have been another species of animal emerging as the "new" humans? Like...would there have been a bunch of highly intelligent cats sitting in our place and posting on forums on their versions of computer and internet? Laughing



I believe that without homo sapiens, dogs would be the intelligent species that will be posting in forums, cats are too aloof and snobbish.

But interesting question... but the earth would not have remained the same. Even when we still didn't exist, changes happened, from one-celled organisms to reptiles to mammals. So there's no reason why the present environment will remain the same even if we are not in it.
Tumbleweed
Bikerman wrote:

Dinosaurs in general are at the bottom end of the EQ range - Triceratops at around 0.11 would have been a really smart 'biggie' with most of the large dinosaurs clocking below 0.1.
The raptors, on this scale, would be around wildebeast scores (0.68 - 0.8 ).
Our ancestors (the early hominids) were probably around 2-3. At the time of the dinosaurs our ancestor was a shrew-like creature which probably had an EQ at least comparable to, probably greater than, the raptors.


What is considered the most intelligent animal around at the time of our shrew like ancestor ?
Bikerman
Tumbleweed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Dinosaurs in general are at the bottom end of the EQ range - Triceratops at around 0.11 would have been a really smart 'biggie' with most of the large dinosaurs clocking below 0.1.
The raptors, on this scale, would be around wildebeast scores (0.68 - 0.8 ).
Our ancestors (the early hominids) were probably around 2-3. At the time of the dinosaurs our ancestor was a shrew-like creature which probably had an EQ at least comparable to, probably greater than, the raptors.


What is considered the most intelligent animal around at the time of our shrew like ancestor ?
I don't have the data for that, sorry.
kerryworkman
I really don't know, but a world without humans sounds like bliss to me. It's too bad I woldn't live to see it ........ because there would be no more humans. Sad

Sorry for the sad attempt at humor, just trying to lighten the mood. Carry on.
fx-trading-education
In my opinion if the human wouldn't have evolved as they are now, no other specy would have replace them. It would just be another earth more green, and wild.
The reason why I think that is because I don't see that the fact that the human specy became more intelligent was a dramatic handicap for other species to get more intelligence. So the fact that human exist or not shouldn't have much affected the intelligence of other species.
Jinx
Cows, dogs, and cats as we know them today would not exist.

The dodo wouldn't be extinct. Nor the carrier pigeon, and numerous other species driven to extinction by human interference in their habitats, or because of over hunting. Rhinos, Florida panthers, tigers, mountain gorillas, etc. would all most likely have healthy populations.

There wouldn't be a plastic vortex in the Pacific ocean.

There would be no footprints on the moon.

No pyramids

No Stonehinge

Great Britain would be mostly covered by forest.
Tumbleweed
Bikerman wrote:
Tumbleweed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Dinosaurs in general are at the bottom end of the EQ range - Triceratops at around 0.11 would have been a really smart 'biggie' with most of the large dinosaurs clocking below 0.1.
The raptors, on this scale, would be around wildebeast scores (0.68 - 0.8 ).
Our ancestors (the early hominids) were probably around 2-3. At the time of the dinosaurs our ancestor was a shrew-like creature which probably had an EQ at least comparable to, probably greater than, the raptors.


What is considered the most intelligent animal around at the time of our shrew like ancestor ?
I don't have the data for that, sorry.


No problem and thank you anyway ...... I didnt really expect an answer as such , but was pondering is it brain size or how you use it that defines intelligence.
Bikerman
Tumbleweed wrote:
No problem and thank you anyway ...... I didnt really expect an answer as such , but was pondering is it brain size or how you use it that defines intelligence.
Well, that is a tricky one. Observation would lead us to presume that brain ratio is important (ie the mass of brain compared to the mass of the body). Animals that we regard as more intelligent tend to have a higher EQ score (dolphins being a prime example). It could be argued that we are simply defining intelligence in an anthropocentric manner (ie if it behaves like us then we consider it intelligent).
There is no easy answer to the question. It is certainly reasonable to assume that brain ratio is important in intelligence (it makes sense practically), but since we still don't really have a good definition for 'intelligence' it is perhaps not surprising that we can't say for sure...

There is an interesting article on this subject HERE
Gagnar The Unruly
Natural History published a two-essay exchange between Stephen J Gould and Simon Conway-Morris, and each expressed his views on this subject. I found the article to be a bit pedantic, and somewhat biased (Gould has a long history with Natural History magazine) by not allowing Morris a rebuttal, but it is interesting, and Conway-Morris and Gould are/were both brilliant evolutionists. I tend to agree with Conway-Morris, but I don't know (or care, really) if he's right about other species eventually evolving to occupy our niche if it were to be vacant.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/naturalhistory_cambrian.html
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
What would have happened had the genus homo not evolved into the species homo-sapiens-sapiens? Tricky.


A belated thank you for the reply. I am currently on vacation in Vancouver. The above is a very interesting statement, and connected up with someone else that I have been listening to on TV over here. Dr. Deepak Chopra. He seems to think that the evolving of our physical selves are part of spirit first, and that our physical manifestation comes from there. Our physical selves are never the same and are constantly changing, and eventually die. Our earthly bodies are transient and only a reflection of spirit and the spirit is universal, and always connected. I am probably not doing him justice now as his wording is much more scientific, so hope you will not judge Dr. Chopra literally by my writings. Just wonder whether you have come across his writings and what your thoughts are on those?
Bikerman
I know of Chopra's writings on quantum physics - which I regard as nonsense of the first order.
I haven't read any of his works on spiritualism, and have no real intention to do so. I have read some of his writings on medicine, which I also think are nonsense.

It may seem inconsistent that I slate Chopra's work on quantum consciousness but am interested in Penrose's work in the same field. It isn't though. Penrose proposes ideas based on a pretty sound knowledge of quantum physics. We can debate (and Indi and I have done so) whether it is good science, but it certainly isn't psycho-babble. Chopra's work, on the other hand, is exactly that - psycho-babble. He doesn't appear to understand Quantum Physics at all, and uses it simply as a 'buzz-phrase' to justify his beliefs in various 'new-age' concepts.

The stuff I have read by Chopra on consciousness can probably be best described as 'mystic woo-woo, psycho-babble and pseudo-scientific clap-trap'.
The stuff I have read by him on medicine can best be described as 'dangerously ignorant' (which is depressing, considering he is an MD).

You really don't have to read much of Chopra to realise he's not really worth much further consideration. Consider the first sentence of his "The Trouble with Genes (part 2)"
Chopra wrote:
"The mystery of life cannot be solved without answering one essential question. Why are human beings intelligent?"
Err...so before humans came along it was all obvious, no mystery at all? Duh? Woo-Woo alert!.

If you want a more comprehensive debunking of ChopraWoo then try:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/the_trouble_with_deepak_chopra_part_2.php
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I know of Chopra's writings on quantum physics - which I regard as nonsense of the first order.
I haven't read any of his works on spiritualism, and have no real intention to do so. I have read some of his writings on medicine, which I also think are nonsense.

It may seem inconsistent that I slate Chopra's work on quantum consciousness but am interested in Penrose's work in the same field. It isn't though. Penrose proposes ideas based on a pretty sound knowledge of quantum physics. We can debate (and Indi and I have done so) whether it is good science, but it certainly isn't psycho-babble. Chopra's work, on the other hand, is exactly that - psycho-babble. He doesn't appear to understand Quantum Physics at all, and uses it simply as a 'buzz-phrase' to justify his beliefs in various 'new-age' concepts.

The stuff I have read by Chopra on consciousness can probably be best described as 'mystic woo-woo, psycho-babble and pseudo-scientific clap-trap'.
The stuff I have read by him on medicine can best be described as 'dangerously ignorant' (which is depressing, considering he is an MD).

You really don't have to read much of Chopra to realise he's not really worth much further consideration. Consider the first sentence of his "The Trouble with Genes (part 2)"
Chopra wrote:
"The mystery of life cannot be solved without answering one essential question. Why are human beings intelligent?"
Err...so before humans came along it was all obvious, no mystery at all? Duh? Woo-Woo alert!.

If you want a more comprehensive debunking of ChopraWoo then try:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/the_trouble_with_deepak_chopra_part_2.php


Thanks for the feedback. Chopra is making lots of money on the West Coast, and in Vancouver. You should see the number of books he has written stacked on all the shelves of bookshops and second hand bookshops. I wonder however whether he can still use "MD" title behind his name because strictly speaking he is an author of books, and not a practising physician. Perhaps he did a basic degree, and practised his profession for a while until he branched out in writing books and doing presentations. Possibly he should not use the MD any longer. I must be truthful in that I tried to read his book on quantum physics in the nineties but could not make head or tale out of it. He is a very good presenter though, and seems to have a large following, along the West Coast of Canada and the States.
Deuxansenchine
wooah feels weird to imagine the planet without us. like if it could't exist because there would be nobody to see it...
chasbeen
We would first have to clasify "the dominant" species. I am assuming you mean that, when you say
Quote:
What would have happened to the earth had there been no humans?

What actually constitues the "dominant species". Someone else referred to Dinosaurs as the "dominant species" of their time. I suppose the claim was that they could occupy an area and put full claim to it. If we had not evolved as an intelligent species then I don't think any "species" could be described as "Dominant" if there had been no other evolved intelligent life.
barmstonian
Kerryworkman wrote:
I really don't know, but a world without humans sounds like bliss to me. It's too bad I woldn't live to see it

I second that. Similarly, I hate going on holiday where there are too many 'Brits abroad'. Hence I spoil any place I go for myself, more so if I go with any Brit friends.

No humans would alive would mean there would be less far-out anthropocentric Copenhagen (what's Copenhagen?) interpretations of quantum mechanics though.

B.
Bikerman
barmstonian wrote:
No humans would alive would mean there would be less far-out anthropocentric Copenhagen (what's Copenhagen?) interpretations of quantum mechanics though.

B.

Oh..err....if we stop measuring it then the universe might vanish into a probability wave-function Smile

PS - I accidentally deleted your posting when trying to reply (still getting to grips with mod functions) but I think I managed to restore it as was..my apologies.
barmstonian
Bikerman wrote:

Oh..err....if we stop measuring it then the universe might vanish into a probability wave-function Smile

exactly - poor old Schrödinger's cat wouldn't know if he was coming or going Wink

Bikerman wrote:

PS - I accidentally deleted your posting when trying to reply (still getting to grips with mod functions) but I think I managed to restore it as was..my apologies.

No problem - the 'would alive would' sounds like my usual muddled nonsense!

Cheers
"When all's said and done, there's a lot more said than done" - my boss at my work review.
ptolomeo
That is a terrible formulated question. Impossible to give place to some serious discussion about nothing. We are here and there is no "logica" reason for us to be here.
framus
Personally, I cannot envision an earth without humans. After all, who would be around to write our saga? I agree, we are endangering our planet with pollution, etc, and that we are leaving our children a world we ourselves would not like to deal with, but a world WITHOUT humans? No thank you, sir.
supernova1987a
An accident occurred and I was created. That became me. ME? Oh how intelligent!
jiangshan
if there is no human in the earth there will not be so much cars,so much smokings,so much white rubbish.
Bikerman
White rubbish? I presume you are referring to 'white goods' ?
Afaceinthematrix
Jinx wrote:

There would be no footprints on the moon.


Maybe... He did ask what Earth would be like without humans... maybe humans would have come onto some other planet and then we still would have made it to Earth's moon... you never know.
Wolf1918
I recently watched a program called (I think) "After People" or something like that. Anyway, what it was about was how long it would take for the evidence of human habitation to be erased by nature. I know it's not actually related to this question. But it was very interesting to watch just how quickly nearly every trace of us would reclaimed by nature. Our roads, buildings, skyscrapers, everything would be gone in just a few thousand years. Most of it would be gone even sooner.

The program speculated that Mount Rushmore would be the last remaining reminder of mankind's existence. Since it is carved out of solid granite, and due to the climate it is in, it would deteriorate much more slowly than the rest of our creations.

Chad
gandalfthegrey
This is an amazing documentary on the subject:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4939078184096254535&ei=v7BJSY7DIpLq-AHNxJW9Cg&q=life+after+people
truespeed
fx-trading-education wrote:
In my opinion if the human wouldn't have evolved as they are now, no other specy would have replace them. It would just be another earth more green, and wild.
The reason why I think that is because I don't see that the fact that the human specy became more intelligent was a dramatic handicap for other species to get more intelligence. So the fact that human exist or not shouldn't have much affected the intelligence of other species.


I agree with this point,if anything our evolved intelligence should of helped other species become more intelligent,us being here hasn't hindered them in any way.

As has already been said,intelligence isn't an inevitability of evolution,we are the exception to the rule,there were no intelligent species before us and in all probability there would be none after us.
crazygriffin
cool, a life without people, i actually saw that documentary and found it interesting (up until 200 years, then it got boring), but it would be fascinating to know what would happen to our civilisation if we just simply vanished.
beauty
Without humans there wouldn,t be humanity. Twisted Evil
Xanatos
Earth without humans would just be Earth without us to speculate about what it would be like without us. You know... eventually some ecoterrorist is going to start believing that all humanity should die in order to save the earth, if it hasnt occured already.
ocalhoun
Xanatos wrote:
Earth without humans would just be Earth without us to speculate about what it would be like without us. You know... eventually some ecoterrorist is going to start believing that all humanity should die in order to save the earth, if it hasnt occured already.

<.<
>.>
Really, I don't seriously think that anymore. Very often.
Xanatos
ocalhoun wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
Earth without humans would just be Earth without us to speculate about what it would be like without us. You know... eventually some ecoterrorist is going to start believing that all humanity should die in order to save the earth, if it hasnt occured already.

<.<
>.>
Really, I don't seriously think that anymore. Very often.


I'm watching you>.<
speeDemon
Heyy, if you can wait for another 100000 years, then well, humans will go extinct, and ofcourse, history will repeat itself, so you'll see if the intelligent cats rule, or the dogs! Wink
HamsterMan
If we are extinct in 100000 years I will be seriously dissapointed in humanity. By then I'd expect us to have inhabited mars and maybe even other solar systems, and have tons of self sustained space stations all over the place.
Chaya
kerryworkman wrote:
I really don't know, but a world without humans sounds like bliss to me. It's too bad I woldn't live to see it ........ because there would be no more humans. Sad

Sorry for the sad attempt at humor, just trying to lighten the mood. Carry on.


: D I think so too.
SBCBC33
du du du du du du du du
Just as it did before we were here, the planet will continue to live on with us humans ever have been being a mere blip on its radar.
Related topics
Who All Believes In Evolution?
Life on Mars
Another religions
A debate of religion, science, and more
ALIENS AND UFOs
No more fish in the sea
Is 'world peace' impossible?
If you don't believe God exists
Christians, Jesus, and Africans born in America from slavery
Magnetic Poles Reversing
How to save Earth from an asteroid impact
god website
God exists - and here's the proof
Extraterrestrial life.. how would we know..
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.