What would it actually take for humans to wreck the planet so bad that it would be completely uninhabitable for humans and other animals?

Like if we set about chopping down every single tree that might work.
- But by the time we chopped them down, much would have grown back already.

If we actually set out to deliberately destroy the planet, we'd be fighting a losing battle.

Maybe if we took all the nuclear waste and dumped it all in our oceans, then maybe that would kill all ocean life and set off a chain reaction, where humans would have no seafood, but maybe then we would have to salt the land as well.

I'll admit if anyone can do it, than humans could.
We can take a perfectly good rainforest ecosystem and turn it into a lifeless desert if we set about doing so.
And many species are becoming extinct because we have poor systems of managing things.
- But to destroy the planet completely would take a level of extreme effort and determination.

Global nuclear war and a nuclear winter might go some way to helping achieve this kind of mass destruction.

I think that this shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter Ridd was correct.

Arnchair critic,
We'd be gone long before the Planet dies !

Totally agree shadowminister.

Great Barrier Reef biodiversity including coral is endangered due to incomplete science and politics.

Damage to coral is continuing to occur from time to time depending on winds and currents transporting a spike in the dissolved nutrient load from southern and local sewage and land use, point sources.

The total dissolved nutrient load is not measured or included in GBRMPA linked science, if it was then the danger would be obvious.

Dissolved nutrient transported within Australian east coast sediment dispersal current streams northwards between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority boundary and the coast. That boundary is a political boundary.

Dissolved nutrient bonds to fresh water in sewage. Fresh water tends to the ocean surface. Fresher surface water on the Aus east coast is driven mainly northwards against the coast by prevailing S.E winds.
The flow with a spike of bonded nutrient is sometimes driven or drawn eastwards by wind or water currents leading to algal blooms that also impact the GBR .

The total east coast nutrient load and flow was not measured in Gladstone Port works excavation science, involving dumping and resuspension of nutrient loaded estuary seabed spoil.

Without relevant scientific evidence of warning signs, further coastal works and dumping of sewage continues to cause algae blooms and eutrophication and hypoxia.  Impact includes damage or destruction of estuary and bay seagrass nurseries for small fish on which big fish and seabirds and Pacific Islands people depend. 

Nutrient pollution proliferated algae reducing photosynthesis is the problem, not overfishing.

Where are all the seabirds these days, and affordable fresh local fish?
No science on that either, despite mire than $2 Billion leaving Aus annually to import fish.

Solutions should include debate and awareness of high tech-low cost solar pumps to reduce the nutrient load by sending quality wasterwater far inland for grazing and cotton production.

But ego and political obsession with CO2 emissions is a problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946114/

JF Aus,
Agreed but don't let recreational saturation over-fishing off the hook !