Quote Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo View Post
Thrall says: I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument [Man has done only harm to the planet]. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another.
Actually, it was I who said that. Please don't blame Thrall for my opinions. She's far to sweet a person to have that inflicted upon her.

And as for ALL life doing harm - maybe by eating other plants and animals, or building nests - but no other species that I'm aware of has industrialised the way mankind has, nor has any other species changed the face of the planet the way we have. And you admit this when you say that man is destroying the parts of Earth where we live (pretty much everywhere except the deserts).
I would go so far as to say (as pure conjecture, mind) that the degree of harm caused by mankind is far beyond that caused by all other species (including all human species before homo sapiens), past and present, put together.
Yes, it is probably true that mankind's effects on the ecosystem is much more far-reaching than any other species. This is primarily because of industrialization and because mankind is one of the most successful (in terms of survival) species ever to inhabit the planet. Aside from some insect species (and discounting microscopic life) NO other species has managed to inhabit virtually every climate and condition.
But there are other species which can be nearly as devastating as man. Army ants come to mind. They can devastate a tremendous (for their size) swath of territory, eating virtually everything in their path. Most grazing animals will practically denude the lands they graze on, moving to new feeding grounds when the old are used up. They rely on nature to regrow the feed behind them, but if something prevents that from happening they will die off in droves. As will those species which depend upon what the grazers leave behind. As will those predator species which prey on the grazers. It's the law of nature at its harshest, and it's been happening since the beginnings of life.

Ozme says: Species come and species go.
How indifferent is that? OK I guess a few -raptors polished off several different kinds of -suaruses. And maybe an unheard of breed of antelope is beyond our ken because the sabre-toothed tiger got to it first. And I've heard of an incident where a single cat was responsible for wiping our the entire population of (unique?) birds on a small island. But I think no other breed of animal is responsible for the extermination of so many other species as is mankind. (I suspect we were even responsible for the extermination of the neandthals, our cousins.)
Man comes and species go is perhaps a better way of putting it.
No, I think Oz has it right. While man has, indeed been directly or indirectly responsible for the destruction of many species, far more have been wiped out through natural occurrences than mankind could ever hope to destroy. A single asteroid strike 65 million years ago wiped out 95% of all species on the earth in a geological eyeblink. Should we bemoan the potential loss of all those beautiful animals? I think not. Chances are, without that particular event mankind would never have developed.
During each of several ice ages, brought about without any assist from humanity, hundreds and thousands of species were destroyed, and probably billions of life forms. And when the ice ages ended and more temperate climates came, thousands more species died off.
The problem we have today is that it becomes difficult to determine whether species are dying off because of natural forces or, if you divorce humanity from Nature, through man's actions.

I suppose we can relax to some extent in the knowledge that, when you do look at things dispassionately, it'll be the Africans and South East Asians who will suffer most, and the profligate developed countries will then have plenty more room to expand into.
Actually, when you think about it, in the event of a major environmental shift, I believe the less developed populations would be more able to survive than the developed ones. They are more used to living on the edge, making do with what they can get and not depending on others to get it for them. One of the lessons to be learned from disasters like Katrina and earthquakes is that people who have spent their whole lives depending upon society for everything they consume are lost when that society breaks down. Aside from scavenging for leftovers (as opposed to looting for luxuries which may not have any real use any more) many of those people where not able to provide even simple food for themselves. Those who know how to gather food and find shelter in nature are much better equipped to survive.

The thing to remember is, barring a catastrophe which sterilizes or even destroys the entire planet, chances are that pockets of humanity will survive. We are like that. We can acclimate ourselves to harsh environments. We can survive in places where more specialized creatures cannot. That is our greatest achievement.