Have humans destroyed completely destroyed earth??

Gabu, that "mass extinction event" is a load of rubbish. The extintion of the dinosaurs occured over millions of years, you can't possibly think it all just happened in a matter of years. I don't have the definitive answer, but I think it's far more likely there was a climate change in that period (perhaps an ice-age) and dinosaurs were simply too big and didn't have control over their body temperature in the way a small animal does.

No, we've changed it, but the idea that we are powerful enough to destroy it is nonsense. The earth will be around long after we are gone.

Not yet. Theres still plenty of Earth to destroy.lilasianwonder

I think in 20 or 25 years the damage we have done will become much more apparent.

The ground is here, so no, the humans have not completely destroyed completely the earth ;).

We're well on our way, its in our nature sometimes...

*peers around* nope.BiancaDK

I think earth would be boring as a national geographic larva special without humans....grape_of_wrath

I would also like to add that I disagree as well

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]*peers around* nope.clayron

not completely but where shure as hell on track to it

*google earths* still nothin'.BiancaDK

*googles earth*

...O...well, it is still there. Nevermind.

@Gabu: I think it's wrong what we are doing here though, humans are trying to control everything and I just feel it's wrong. Earth would be a lot better off without us I think.

joshrocks2245

Well yes, in the sense that the second highest member of the food chain is better off when the highest member is absent. :P

Gabu, that "mass extinction event" is a load of rubbish. The extintion of the dinosaurs occured over millions of years, you can't possibly think it all just happened in a matter of years. I don't have the definitive answer, but I think it's far more likely there was a climate change in that period (perhaps an ice-age) and dinosaurs were simply too big and didn't have control over their body temperature in the way a small animal does.

PerilousWolf

I didn't say that it happened over a short period of time. What I am saying is that the Earth has survived far, far worse extinctions than anything humans have done or likely will do. The idea that humans have destroyed or are destroying Earth is incredibly hyperbolic.

If you are saying that the K-T extinction event was not brought on by an asteroid impact, however, that hypothesis has basically been proven false. The extinction is perfectly consistent with the fallout of an asteroid impact.

[QUOTE="joshrocks2245"]

@Gabu: I think it's wrong what we are doing here though, humans are trying to control everything and I just feel it's wrong. Earth would be a lot better off without us I think.

GabuEx

Well yes, in the sense that the second highest member of the food chain is better off when the highest member is absent. :P

Gabu, that "mass extinction event" is a load of rubbish. The extintion of the dinosaurs occured over millions of years, you can't possibly think it all just happened in a matter of years. I don't have the definitive answer, but I think it's far more likely there was a climate change in that period (perhaps an ice-age) and dinosaurs were simply too big and didn't have control over their body temperature in the way a small animal does.

PerilousWolf

I didn't say that it happened over a short period of time. What I am saying is that the Earth has survived far, far worse extinctions than anything humans have done or likely will do. The idea that humans have destroyed or are destroying Earth isincredibly hyperbolic.

Very true. However, we are on a good track to destroying ourselves. :P

No.

So we've got a lot of work to do.

Very true. However, we are on a good track to destroying ourselves. :P

789shadow

Ah, now that statement I can get behind much more.

No.

So we've got a lot of work to do.

MetroidPrimePwn

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Very true. However, we are on a good track to destroying ourselves. :P

GabuEx

Ah, now that statement I can get behind much more.

I predict that it will be because of overpopulation leading to at least massive global war for control of resources.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Very true. However, we are on a good track to destroying ourselves. :P

Ah, now that statement I can get behind much more.

I predict that it will be because of overpopulation leading to at least massive global war for control of resources.

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

No.

So we've got a lot of work to do.

htekemerald

Preferably at Antarctica.

Those smug penguin bastards have gone un-murdered for far too long :x

not only humans but cows. yes cows. when cows fart it adds to global warming. true fact

hiphopballer

"Humans don't destroy planets; planets destroy planets"

Yes, we have.

Faith in humanity: non-existent.

"Humans don't destroy planets; planets destroy planets"

one_plum

Sometimes Galactus, too.

Earth belongs to the Superior Beings. mother nature cant touch us ;)

The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, it has endured super volcanoes and huge ass meteor strikes. Us little humans haven't done anything to the planet that's worth worrying over. I recommend watching the show Life After People, it pretty much shows how the Earth could get rid of all evidence of humanity within a few hundred years.clubsammich91

Pretty much this. We're incredibly insignificant in the grand scale of things. New lifeforms will arise that will adapt to whatever changes we leave behind on the Earth.

Almost

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, it has endured super volcanoes and huge ass meteor strikes. Us little humans haven't done anything to the planet that's worth worrying over. I recommend watching the show Life After People, it pretty much shows how the Earth could get rid of all evidence of humanity within a few hundred years.xionvalkyrie

Pretty much this. We're incredibly insignificant in the grand scale of things. New lifeforms will arise that will adapt to whatever changes we leave behind on the Earth.

Two words: Cockroach civilization. :P

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, it has endured super volcanoes and huge ass meteor strikes. Us little humans haven't done anything to the planet that's worth worrying over. I recommend watching the show Life After People, it pretty much shows how the Earth could get rid of all evidence of humanity within a few hundred years.xionvalkyrie

Pretty much this. We're incredibly insignificant in the grand scale of things. New lifeforms will arise that will adapt to whatever changes we leave behind on the Earth.

Insignificant is not the right word, we've destroyed 98% of the world's rainforests, ecosystems that won't recover for hundreds of thousands of years; we've destroyed 99% of naturally occuring praries, ecosystems that will never be exactly the same; we've begun to destroy coral reefs, some of the oldest ecosysetms on the planet, because of how we treat the environment leading to coral bleaching; human expansion has pushed certain species such as the panda and some whale species close to extinction, and some of these species may be too fargone to ever make a full recovery.

Ecosystems are a delicate balance, even the slightest actions can have far-reaching effects, and what we have done through expansion, pollution, and other actions is far from slight. Maybe in the long run we won't be around as long as wildlife will be, but that doesn't mean we don't affect wildlife. New forms of life will grow after we are gone, but that doesn't mean we don't affect species that exist now that might not be around as long as they could be because of our actions. Our species will die the metaphorical death it deserves, in other words we'll rest in the grave we dug for ourselves, unfortunately we won't be the only species there, there will be plenty that we have recklessly dragged with us. I think that was part of the point that the series was trying to make in the first place, we destroy and destroy and for what? If that's the mentality we have, the only monument to ourselves we'll leave behind is destruction.

Humans are quite incapable of destroying the Earth. We don't have the technology to affect that much mass. What you mean to say, I think, is "Have humans completely destroyed the Earth for habitation by humans?"

Humans are quite incapable of destroying the Earth. We don't have the technology to affect that much mass. What you mean to say, I think, is "Have humans completely destroyed the Earth for habitation by humans?"

Nuclear bombs say hello.

Humans are quite incapable of destroying the Earth. We don't have the technology to affect that much mass. What you mean to say, I think, is "Have humans completely destroyed the Earth for habitation by humans?"

Nuclear bombs say hello.

NarutoFever1

You think that detonating all the nuclear bombs on the planet, will what, crack the planet open?

You think that detonating all the nuclear bombs on the planet, will what, crack the planet open?

Palantas

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, look up. See that moon? That exists because the Earth was pulverized by a planet the size of freaking Mars. That didn't destroy the Earth.

Now, I certainly don't know the relevant numbers or how much energy is contained in the world's nuclear arsenals. But if getting smashed by a ****ing PLANET wasn't enough to destroy the Earth, I VERY much doubt that all the nuclear bombs on the planet would be enough to do the job.

If all of the world's nuclear bombs were strategically detonated in order to cause maximum damage, I sort of doubt that would be enough to even kill off all life on Earth, let alone destroying the Earth itself.

You think that detonating all the nuclear bombs on the planet, will what, crack the planet open?

Detonate enough of them and you could cause serious issues.

I'm sure we're more than capable of making quite a few of them.

Detonate enough of them and you could cause serious issues.

I'm sure we're more than capable of making quite a few of them.

NarutoFever1

Yeah well, the title of this thread isn't "cause serious issues," it's "destroyed earth."

Here, somebody do this:

1. Get the energy release for the tsar bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.
2. Get the approximate number of warheads in everybody's nuclear arsenal.
3. Multiple #1 by #2, which will likely give you a figure a couple orders of magnitude higher than the actual combined destructive power of the world's nukes.
4. Compare that to the gravitational binding energy of the planet.

[QUOTE="NarutoFever1"]

Detonate enough of them and you could cause serious issues.

I'm sure we're more than capable of making quite a few of them.

Palantas

Yeah well, the title of this thread isn't "cause serious issues," it's "destroyed earth."

Here, somebody do this:

1. Get the energy release for the tsar bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.
2. Get the approximate number of warheads in everybody's nuclear arsenal.
3. Multiple #1 by #2, which will likely give you a figure a couple orders of magnitude higher than the actual combined destructive power of the world's nukes.
4. Compare that to the gravitational binding energy of the planet.

Okay, so they can render large portions of the earth veritable wastelands, unable to sustain life for an indefinite period of time, possibly forever depending on just how much life we're able to destroy, and that doesn't fit your definition of destroyed?

Humans sure had a lot of potential to live in harmony with the earth...

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]We haven't COMPLETELY destroyed the Earth, only most of it. At least the north pole is still intact!joshrocks2245

Don't you think thats wrong we've done that?? I think it's sad that we destroyed most of the stuff on earth and some humans think they are so great, I mean none of us are great, we destoryed this planet that doesn't belong to us.

There's so much new technology awaiting to be discovered.

Sure, we haven't destroyed it yet, but there's no way you can safely say we won't ever.

Unless you can see into the future.

Maybe a week from now, maybe a couple million years.

We're stupid enough we will continue to harm Earth, intentionally or not.

And for the record, I doubt they literally meant 'destroyed'.

Okay, so they can render large portions of the earth veritable wastelands, unable to sustain life for an indefinite period of time, possibly forever depending on just how much life we're able to destroy, and that doesn't fit your definition of destroyed?

theone86

Shouldn't fit anyone's definition of "destroyed", because the Earth is still there.

If you take a needle, dip it in alcohol and then heat it up red hot, have you destroyed that needle? Or have you simply removed all life from that needle?

If you take a metal pot full of crabs and shrimp, and then heat it to the point that everything in that pot is dead, have you destroyed the pot?

If you go to the zoo and kill every single animal on exhibit, have you destroyed the zoo?

This is the ONLY instance in which Y lives on X, and people somehow think that destroying Y is synonymous witrh destroying X. If you killed off the athlete's foot fungus living on your feet, is that the same as saying that you have destroyed your feet? No, because the fungus and the foot aren't the same thing. The "organisms which live on Earth" are NOT the same thing as "Earth". They are not the same thing. Destroying one does not require the destruction of the other. Earth could be a barren wasteland completely devoid of all life, and Earth would still be doing just fine.

I'll be moving to Reachwhen Earth is destroyed. So long suckers :P