Would it help pollution if all humans died?

Question

humans are the cause of pollution, and if we got rid of ourselves, would it really solve the problems with pollution? but what about the remaining species left on earth? would everything actually turn out better or worse if humans were gone?

Answer 1

it's realy a hard question it's now a mater of 2b or not 2b

our exestenc attach closly to pollution but  what can we do to face it  ???? the answer is that as long as we have a needs we well couse pollution and the only way to protect the invironment is for us to extend

.egypt .. says .. peace.

Answer 2

I think this quote sums up the attitude of many environmentalists.

Isn’t the only hope for the

planet that the

industrialized nations

collapse? Isn’t it our

responsibility to bring

that about?

• Maurice Strong; Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and

Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary

General of the UN.

Answer 3

It depends how you define pollution. There are many natural phenomena that are polluting. and cause terrible devastation to plant and animal life e.g. volcanoes, hot springs.

There are some places where the land is so polluted with natural poisonous minerals that plants are toxic to eat. e.g in New Caledonia you cannot eat the plants gronw there because of nickel poisoning. In Bangladesh, deep water wells are contaminated with natural arsenic.

There are islands off the coast of south America so deep in bird droppings that nothing can grow.

Humans are part of nature -- and the only part that has the ability to recognise what they are doing -- good or bad -- to the environment. There are better ways to deal with pollution than getting rid of every human, and we hav the power to create these better ways.

Answer 4

Undeniably yes.  Humans dump enormous quantities of pollutants into our air, water and surroundings every day.   However, if we scratch the surface of your question a little, we get into deeper questions of philosophy and theology (of the "if a tree falls in the woods. . . " variety).  How do we define better and worse?  Worse for humans, no doubt!

Scientists estimate that humans have destroyed roughly 30% of nature's productive capacity over the last few decades (on our way to 100% I guess).  But it doesn't have to be.  As Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart point out in their excellent book, "Cradle to Cradle," ants in total weigh more than humans, and they have been busy, busy, busy for millions of years without destroying the planet.  If anything, they've been improving it.  By rethinking and redesigning our economies and cultures we could be become more like ants.  We could continue to be busy, busy, busy while contibuting to healing our planet rather than destroying it.

Answer 5

It would not. humans provide carbon dioxide and without carbon dioxide all plants would die and polution will just get much worse

Answer 6

If you remove humans, you have a natural ecosystem.  One that has animals and plants.  You have chain-of-command in the food cycle, thus we were no longer the top of the food chain....giving it to another animal(s).

But what makes it different than now and without humans is that NO animal builds cities, cars, or anything of that nature.  Pollution would drop, land that was dominated by cities would turn back into forests, meadows, and savannas.

The planet would be basic, but lush and clean.  Everything would be stable.

Answer 7

good question , will help reduce pollution as we are the major cause of it ... but as the human population is growing environment equilibrim has shifted slightly and if we suddenly remove all humans ... i guess there will be more food plants and trees on earth and might dominate earth and other plant species would die ... because humans have boosted their power to grow by providing them better environment ....

Answer 8

Probably, but to some extent, it would matter how we died.  If all the bodies became methane (a potent greenhouse gas) that would not help.  Similarly, cremation would put lots of carbon into the atmosphere; and if survivors took great airplane trips to the funerals of those dying first, that would cut into any benefits.  Some bodies have mercury in their teeth, and it is possible this could leach out if the body were not properly disposed of.    

Humans do not cause *all* pollution, and some natives have lifestyles which are at least relatively sustainable (non-polluting).

Answer 9

It would definately help lots of the problems around the planet if there were fewer humans.  Or at least fewer men.

Answer 10

firstly if all humans are gone there would never be a problem with pollution, and secondly the remaining species hardly rely on humans.(not including your pets of course)

Answer 11

It would help with some pollutants like smog. It wouldn't help with global warming.