|
Post by sergeyfen on Sept 4, 2012 7:06:32 GMT -5
Author is saying that humans are insignificant. I dont agree with that because my view of point is that we are very important. We do harm nature a lot but then we try to make up as much as we can.
Humans are not perfect so we do lot of bad things with nature. But i think its part of life cycle sacrificing something for another.
Anything to say?
|
|
|
Post by elisalee on Sept 5, 2012 6:40:18 GMT -5
I'm also against the author's thoughts, because we harm the nature for surviving. Nowadays, world's population is increasing rapidly. As more people live on earth, we need more spaces to live for surviving. It's not like we harm the nature for no reason. Humans still think about our nature.
|
|
|
Post by JustinK. on Sept 6, 2012 5:31:29 GMT -5
Actually, i agree with the author. The Earth and mother nature is so powerful and majestic that humans are nothing compared to Earth. Even though we do damage and populate the Earth, but think about it, the nature is still the dominant in this case. For example: An earthquake or a flood kills millions of people every year around the globe. So far, scientists can only get warnings of natural disasters before hands, but can't stop them to happen. I think what the author's true meaning is that, human life is just inferior compared to the Earth. No animals or plants will notice our disappearance.
|
|
|
Post by nadiraamalina on Sept 6, 2012 6:20:54 GMT -5
The powers that shape the earth could crush our existence in seconds. So Nature pretty much rules over us humans as far as it is concerned. And if we go extinct, there's really no one around to remember us. Even if there are creatures out there who remember our existence, we're no longer relevant to the world, even if we were in the first place. So yes, I agree with the author. We are only the top dogs for this current time and to human history. Us humans have never changed the course of nature in any way, so there is no reason for us to be held in higher regard.
|
|
|
Post by lukejoo1092 on Sept 6, 2012 6:33:40 GMT -5
I agree on the idea that humans are significant. However, I don't think that justifies why we can harm nature. We harm nature in order to fulfill our needs and wants. For example, we cut down trees to make houses and furniture, we dig massive holes in the ground to mine minerals, and we release ozone gases to drive cars. These are all focused to us, not nature. We are sacrificing it to make ourselves more comfortable. Usually when someone sacrifices for you, you sacrifice something for that person in return. Somehow we aren't applying this rule when nature gets involved. We aren't caring for the sacrifices nature has made for us. We aren't treating it fairly. Yes, humans are important in this world but I believe that one of the unfortunate reasons why they are important is because they are the murderers of nature which is truly sad to say.
|
|
|
Post by sazad100 on Sept 7, 2012 21:24:40 GMT -5
I agree with you Sergey. Humans are significant. Yes we do harm plants and animals a lot but then who are taking care of them. Plants need people to stay alive and people needs plant to stay alive. Plants give us oxygen and and we give plant carbon dioxide which is important for both to stay alive. Again engineers are discovering a lot of technology which are friendly to the nature and about the animals a lot of people pet many different kids of animals. Yes there might be a lot of people that does bad things to the nature but there are people eho are still out there trying their best to save them. So i think saying that humans are insignificant is wrong.
|
|
dwsuh1
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by dwsuh1 on Sept 7, 2012 23:43:00 GMT -5
I say we are insignificant beacuse all the things we did to nature and still doing them is causing a lot of animals and causing a lot of damage to earth so when we are extinct it would actully help more to nature then us human trying to help the nature actully go and survive since out of billions and trillions of people around the wrold not much people tries to help nature and people destroy nature every day slowly not noticing they are acutlly killing them.
|
|
|
Post by mirim002 on Sept 8, 2012 2:41:41 GMT -5
I do not like to say this but we are insignificant. I believe we are insignificant because we "pollute" the environment and do things to nature that could be killing animals and trees. I believe we should stop destroying and start helping the environment. However, we do this because of reasons, such as, paper, desks, medicine, and all the other stuff. I do feel bad about not caring for the environment. Maybe we could help little by little.
|
|
irin
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by irin on Sept 8, 2012 7:26:29 GMT -5
Human signficant because human can do many thing so we can help many creation but also human is insignificant because human doing bad things like they destroying creation and some people killing the people it is problem to the earth also some people hurting the earth.
|
|
|
Post by brandonina on Sept 8, 2012 20:25:16 GMT -5
Even though I said this already on other posts, I think it depends on how you relate humans to nature. On earth, we are truly significant since we are the dominating species. We sometimes harm nature For example, we cut trees, pollute air, and cause animal extinction. Sometimes, we help nature by preserving wildlife, cleaning animals' environment, and etc. In either way, we greatly influence nature and ,in fact, we are the largest part in this planet. However, in a large scale, we are just nothing. No other parts in the nature care about us. And that's true.
I strongly agree with the author's message. It's pathetic to imagine our extinction, which causes trivial consequences in nature.
|
|
|
Post by esther on Sept 9, 2012 6:04:12 GMT -5
I also disagree with the author. I believe that animals and nature are there because humans overrule them. But the author states something exactly opposite from what I think, which makes me think in a different perspective. Even though, I do not understand why humans are 'insignificant'. Some people might think that nature is important than humans, and I can understand them even though they are not for my idea. But I don't understand why the author treats humans as 'insignificant'.
|
|
|
Post by yeajinchoi on Sept 9, 2012 6:20:59 GMT -5
I disagree with the author. I believe that the nature is there to support the lives of humans by providing food, shelter... etc. But when the author described her point of view with the poem, "There will come soft rains", I was very puzzled. As a human herself, why would she state that humans are insignificant to the world? That humans are smaller than nature? I think that as humans, we are much stronger than nature. We can pollute the air, we build dams and create rivers that change the water flow system. But not only do we pollute and disturb nature, but we also help them as well. We plant trees and do other stuff. In the end, we are better than humans
|
|
|
Post by jooyoungpark on Sept 9, 2012 7:06:24 GMT -5
I think I agree with the author. We are a only a small bit of nature. We might think that we control earth right now, however we might think that we are an important factor to nature. However in reality, even dinosaurs who roamed this earth got extinct for only a natural disaster. We might have technology, but even than, the after math of the disaster, will make us suffer more. We can bomb the whole earth, but nature will restore it self in years, and we won't be able to live. I believe that no matter what we do, we will be always insignificant to nature.
|
|
|
Post by junilee26 on Sept 9, 2012 9:41:28 GMT -5
I have to say I'm for we are significant. Humans are significant right now. We have the full power of the Earth and we have created this Earth and also we have started a whole new generation. In the future who knows what kind of living thing will rule the Earth? It might be robots because technology is developing every second and it might be too advanced that robots might take over the world and we will become extinct. Even if robots rule over the Earth or some kind of alien rules over the world we are still a very important part of Earth history. We are mostly likely to continue on the generation for at least more than 10,000 years, I hope. We are the creatures for now, owning the Earth and we are the ones that will continue the whole world even after 1390238235 years.
|
|
james
Full Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by james on Sept 10, 2012 0:53:18 GMT -5
I agree, they can't say that humans are just insignificant. Harming nature and doing a lot of bad things, I think those are just a part of process of a human evolution or development. You know what? The Earth can't exist by itself (without humans)if the humans don't exist. I know that we're existing because of the earth, however, ever since the human was created, the earth can't be living without humans too. I've seen this documentary about what happens to the earth when all the humans are gone. At the beginning of a few hundred years, the earth gets all the nature things back. However, as much more time goes on, the Earth goes away. So the main point is, nature exist because we exist and humans are not insignificant. Probably I think it's more ok to say it's not necessary to have humans not saying that the humans are insignificant.
|
|