debate compitition on the world would not be better without humans
Answers
Explanation:
the Earth and its surviving life forms would be better off without humans unless we get serious about slowing global warming. Professor May suggests that our disappearance may not be tragic at all, because there would be no one to miss the vaulted achievements of humanity he mentions like art, literature and music.
He also poses as a possible tragic loss our scientific advances, some of which have benefited nonhuman animals and the planet. But destroying our own species would to me show that we have caused more harm than good. Oops — too late!
As for Jonathan S. Tobin, I have no quarrel with likening what he calls “doomsday environmentalism” to a religion. Both are deeply held beliefs through which adherents find meaning and purpose in life. Believers speak of caring for the Earth as a tenet of religion, but environmentalists commonly associating that cause with biblical notions of sin and punishment doesn’t ring true to me.
National Review, for which Tobin writes, has a less than stellar record for accurate coverage of climate change and has been known to play fast and loose with the science. Contemplating the possibility of Earth without humans is no more “the stuff of satire” than is denying the full reality of climate change.