The great destroyer: human or nonhuman nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human Nature
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether human malevolence or natural predation poses a greater threat to life. Participants express concerns about the potential for catastrophic events, such as nuclear warfare, stemming from human actions driven by malevolence, particularly in response to geopolitical tensions. The conversation highlights a belief that human behavior, characterized by obstinacy rather than ignorance, leads to destructive environmental practices. There is a consensus that while nature typically maintains balance, human intervention disrupts this equilibrium, suggesting that human malevolence is more destructive in the long run compared to natural predation. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the significant impact of human actions on the environment and the potential for escalating violence.

Does human malevolence or natural predation have a more lethal consequence to life?

  • Human malevolence and ignorance

    Votes: 4 100.0%
  • Natural predation and randomness

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Both are equally lethal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither is significant

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
Is human malevolence or natural predation more destructive to life?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Malevolence in response to malevolence in response to predation.

nuke holocaust because terrorists nuked a city because US imperialism.

that's the "end-times" scenario i see most likely to happen. what would result from a sudden mushroom cloud over NYC or DC? it would get crazy and i could see many nukes going all over the place...
 
i think i misunderstood, overall life? predation is more destructive..
 
I agree with the malevolence part, but not the ignorance part. Ignorance is defined as unaware. Humans are perfectly aware of the dangers involved with recklessly cutting down trees and stuff. A better word to use is obstinate.
 
i agree...
human can't always find a reason for the wrong thing they do
 
Loren Booda, as usual you have come up with a very thought-provoking poll. I chose Human Malevolence. I did so because nature seems to keep itself in check, and maintain homeostasis, until the introduction of Humans. In fact, the second stage of the development of an environment is caused by either natural disasters or human intervention (which is practically the same thing anyway:wink:).
 
Thread 'RIP George F. Smoot III (1945-2025)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot https://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/george-smoot-iii https://apc.u-paris.fr/fr/memory-george-fitzgerald-smoot-iii https://elements.lbl.gov/news/honoring-the-legacy-of-george-smoot/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2006/smoot/facts/ https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200611/nobel.cfm https://inspirehep.net/authors/988263 Structure in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometer First-Year Maps (Astrophysical Journal...
Back
Top