Nothing I am going to say here is all that original, not im my opinion. However I feel that alot of it is mostly unheard.
First off, I think we are currently a bacteria on this planet, but at a much higher level then we think of when we hear bacteria. I think it still hold true due to the ammount of time we have been on this planet, and how much we have changed it. We collect, consume, and destroy everything we can. Really we even told ourselves that its the correct thing to do, after all "god put that there for us to use" is what some of us are told when we are young. Ill back that up a little by saying that I have surrounded myself with exotic items, that I know are destined for a landfil. These 'exotic' things include my computer monitor, which is composed of glass, wire, plastic, and some toxic stuff I dont know about. These materials would never have collected in this space in front of me if they were not taken from various other locations that I could not travel to myself. You can do this for everything on your desk, well I was able to anyways. We really are comsuming our environment unconsiously moat of the time, consious the rest. No other species on this planet (that I know of) does this to its environment, and they have all been here longer than us.
Now thats just the 'environmental-issue', assuming that we never created the current global warming situation, and that everything is 'normal' as far as the plant's health, we would still have another problem. That problem (IMO) is genetic deterioration. What I mean by that, is I think we are making every generation weaker. We have come to learn, that using the same pestiside will over time, become ineffectave. The insects become immune to the poision, or whatever was used to make them dislike the plants. I feel it could also be said that every time we use a product to eleviate ourselves of some undesireable sympton, we will become more vournable to said sympton, or whatever is causing it. I feel this way because our body (IMHO) is not required to do as much as it would have to normally. It will come to be dependant on that product to take care of the problem in the future. It is understood that some species that live in many different parts of the world, can have different enviromental challenges. For example, a squirel that lives in Maine, will have to save food for a longer ammount of time then one from california. This type of habbit in the species comes in information passed down from parent to child, in the genetics. The building blocks work the same, it is crazy for us to think that there will not be negitave side effects from the use of these products over a long period of time.
People at one time, died alot more often, maybe. It is hard to tell if they really did die more often, but I think we are letting too many people live. I feel that this issue is related to the last one a little. When Cougars started attacking people in California, they said "the city is expanding.. bla bla, people in the cats environment.. bla bla, hungry cat eats person". Nothing hard to understand there. What is hard for me to understand is why people are suprised about getting attacked, you are in a mountian, its a mountian-cat. However many hundreds (or thousands) of years ago, if someone was going to be in that mountian, they would be prepared for a mountian-cat, bring a gun, big stick, or more people to keep safe. We no loger worry about this. People would get eaten by animals, poisioned, fall into a coma, get cancer, get infected, and the list goes on but you should see the point. We can now live on from things that would have normally killed someone, thus allowing them the chance to procreate. I feel that we are letting natural selection to fail in its purpose. Survival of the fittest indeed. I know this has the potential to piss people off, but I think that natures solution to this is homosexuality, and HIV/AIDS. Maybe AIDS is something that has been for all of time, and we are just new to it. But I feel homosexuality is created by the population size. It seems that it is more common in areas of higher populations. When humans were 'younger' (I'm talking about hundres of thousands, or even millions of years ago), there were no mass societies for people to live in, thus there was always a need for offspring. Take away the actual need for sex, when standing in a large city like New York you may feel very little need to contribute to the whole. Maybe even more so when times are bad. I don't think I should continue to speculate on the source of homosexuality in our society. What I wanted to point out, is that we are over-populated, and most homosexuals are not going to have offspring by nature. Thus making the homosexual person a contributor to the over-population solution. As unfortuniate as it may be, AIDS is known to kill people. And it even can be passed down to children. This effectivly cuts off a branch of a family tree. Best case senerio, an infected parent, does not infect the offspring and that child is allowed to reproduce freely. Worst case secerio, the virus prevents the infected person from reproducing by attacking the immune system of the infected person and everyone that person attempts to procreate with. This is currently what is happening in Africa (IIRC) with HIV/AIDS.
I cant write any more tonight. I still have one more thing to say about "The future of man-kind..", Next post.
If you find a spelling, or grammar error, please ignore it.