Earth would be better off without humans; climate change is the fever trying to kill the virus.
From a humanistic perspective, climate change is the end of the world as we know it. From an evolutionary perspective, however, it’s just a routine rebalancing of power. In the past 2.5 billion years there have been five mass extinctions, four of which have been caused by climate change. Time after time, life has been reshaped by these events but never snuffed out. If we accept evolution and natural selection, we must also accept the possibility of our not being selected for. If humans don’t survive, that is just us being selected out of the equation; if we do survive, we will be stronger for it.
Take the bubonic plague, for example. Human population density was at an all-time high, making it easy for the disease to spread, kill millions of people, and eventually run out of susceptible victims. This may seem tragic from a romantic’s view of the world, but functionally, it made our species more resistant to disease and led to a reformation of the medical field. The same perspective can be applied to climate change. Should we try our best to stop it? Sure! But if we succeed, it might not be such a good thing for other life on earth.
Say we fail, a mass extinction event occurs, and humans survive. There will be far fewer of us and technological progress will be slowed right down, but at least we would have a chance to learn from our mistakes and develop technology in a more responsible way going forward. That is the problem, after all: technological advancement has outpaced our ability to foresee consequences.
On the other hand, say we get wiped out in this mass extinction. In this case, we have instantly solved human suffering, poverty, inequality, war, and every other problem facing the human race. Not only this, but the rest of nature will have a much better chance to re-evolve without us.
Neither of these options seem all that bad if you ask me; I would lean towards the second.
Finally, what if no extinction event occurs? Let’s say that scientists discover some miracle bacteria tomorrow that is going to stop global warming in its tracks. That’s great! We can all have another big party to celebrate and go back to worrying about other issues after our hangovers wear off. We still have the destruction of nature, dramatically increasing populations, war, and a million other problems to deal with; you don’t solve climate change and get those dealt with for free.
Humans make up a measly 0.01 percent of life on earth, and all other life is at grave risk because of us. Plant and animal species are going extinct 1,000 times faster than they would naturally because of human interference.
If we survive global warming and mass extinction, we won’t have time to think about killing each other, and we might even be united in rebuilding society.
If we solve global warming tomorrow, however, humans would be put in a position of power that could be disastrous for nature. Overconsumption, plastic in the ocean, deforestation, the constant threat of nuclear war—the negative impact of humanity’s presence drastically outweighs the positives.
Humans solving global warming is a worst-case scenario.