ANARCHit3cht, I pose to you two simple questions: Out of the 7+ billion people in the world, how many would have fire arms just lying around? And how many out of the 7+ billion would know how to use said fire arms? Keep in mind there are some countries, like Japan and England, that do not even allow the possession of fire arms.
They may not, but they possess the capability to obtain a firearm and the ability to use if the situation truly calls for it. It might not be legal, but then again, this is survival we are talking about.
Simple fact of the matter is that you keep saying that our intellect is our natural ability, yet when faced with the situations I posed, you demand to give someone an advanced weapon instead of what occurs in nature itself.
Shall I then provide an example that does not use tools? Imagine you are being chased by a pack wolves. You can climb a tree and get up and out of the way because you know they can't climb. Then you could, let's say, lure them away from the tree using something as simple as a rock which can be commonly found anywhere on the ground, in case you didn't know. Or maybe the tree grows fruit that hits like rocks, and you can just stone the wolves to death from your safe vantage point on top of the tree.
I will admit that in our society, we are the dominant ones, because we carved a niche for ourselves, using technology as the base. And I will humor you with a scenario more to your liking. Let's say, as earlier, we drop someone of average intellect into the Sahara with the same water proportionate to the amount that the lizards and scorpions store. What are the odds of that person coming back alive? I will tell you: they don't. Given the same amount of water in proportion, a human of average intellect will still die. Why? Because the common human barely has a sense of direction anymore. And if you want, we will give them a compass, just for the hell of it. They would still not know which way to head in the sea of sand, and would most likely die from dehydration, simply because we do not have a built-in instinct of water conservation like the lizards and scorpions.
The scorpion has lived all its life in the desert, of course it knows how to survive in the desert. Take the same scorpion and drop him nim the Arctic. You can change the scenario all you want, but the fact remains that it creates an unfair conclusion when you are constantly changing the habitat. Of course a random person wouldn't be able to survive in the desert. Take someone who lives in the area, instead. Someone who has vast experience exploring deserts and surviving in the wild. Would they not fare nicely in the desert? They have had the training, so of course. I do not know much about desert survival, but I can go get myself trained in that regard. You can't take a desert scorpion and teach it how to live in the Arctic. It just wouldn't work. While they excel at surviving in their arid envrionment, they aren't great at much else. Look humanity as a species, we live in deserts, we live on tundras. We live in forests, we live on savvanahs. We live where it is hot, we live where it is cold. We live where it is dry, we live where it is wet. Are you saying that none of that counts because individually we might be able to survive as well in a desert compared to denizens of that desert whose bodies are adapted to live in THAT ENVRIONMENT AND THAT ENVRIONMENT ALONE?
Or, as someone else stated, drop a person of average intellect into an ocean, with all the gear they'd need to survive. They would still end up dead, simply because the average person does not know how to use the equipment given to him. It does not matter if you know how, or if I know how, most people don't, which is why there are classes to teach people how to use the equipment. Our intellect does not mean we can look at something and instantly know how to use it, as that would take the intellect of a genius, and in this day and age, most people are not geniuses.
As I said, we have the potential to learn how to use these tools, other animals do not. While they might at some point im time develop a capable enough intelligence that allows them do so, they currently do not have one.
So, to conclude: Yes, as long as we stick to our niche in the world, we are the dominant species. However, if you toss the average person into the wild with the tools to survive but not the knowledge on how to use all of the equipment, they will die. You see, technology has made us lazy as a species. What do we have to fear as long as we technology?
You must realize that we as a species have far greater capabilities than we are currently living up to. There are many, many things we can do that would set us on the right path towards growing more combat-oriented pheno-types. And again, why does the world always have to be about combat? Sure, a lion might be able to kill a human, but humans can wander long distances and move away from all threats, settling down in an area where they have no natural predators. How does that not in some way count for dominance? They solved their issue, they are still expanding and developing as a species. Just because they can't beat a lion in hand to hand combat doesn't really mean anything. What exactly does that prove but something I haven't already conceded? Yes, lions are stronger than us. I am glad you realize that a creature that can be up to 2-3 times the size of a grown man is stronger than us. Bravo.
And, just as a final statement to prove we are not as dominant as most would like to believe, I would like to point to some of the smallest organisms: parasites. Parasites are unintelligent, and follow a strict life cycle, and are looked down on by us because they seem small and insignificant. However, our bodies are full of parasites. Funny thing is that if you take away those same parasites from everyone in the world, there would be no one left to borrow the bodies. You see, parasites inhabit every living being, and are necessary for us to survive, because while some are bad for us, there are many symbiotic parasites that exist inside of us that allows us to survive.
So, the dominant species isn't mankind, its the parasites. We are their hosts, and while our relationship is symbiotic, the parasites can survive without us, but we cannot survive without them.
Congratulations. I think you've reached the point of spewing out unrelated information in the hopes of confusing me. Sorry, but it won't work. Would you care to explain how they symbiotic relationship we share with parasites has in anyway to do with dominance? Sure, it links us to a dependence on another species, but it is highly plausible that we will be able to replicate the needed parts of these parasitse without the rest of the parasite. Maybe not soon, but eventually. While we couldn't at this point in time live without them, they don't exert any significant amount of influence over the envrionment. If we truly wanted to, we could irradicate all parasites. They are here on our grace--because we choose to have them remain.
This is to both you and Low:
1.) I never said animals can't use tools. Merely that ours are at a far higher level of sophistication
2.) I never said animals can't pass up in dominance, either. Merely that we currently are the dominant species, and we have quite a lead in that regard. The moment we noticed sentience/intelligence on par with ours in let's say Chimps, it would be all over. We would either treat them as inferior life forms like the uncivilzied brutes we are prone to being, or poke and prod at them in a lab all day. But who is to say that over the time they developed sentience/intelligence on par with ours that humans haven't developed a phenotype that better suits them for combat? Since that seems to be the only thing allowed to classify dominance in your head.
And Low, how do you know we will plateau? Who is to say that the apes wont plateau before us? Or that neither of us will? You want to know something funny? There was a time, c 1900 when many people predicted that we reached our peak of greatness. They were dead wrong. They were also professionals, and I doubt you are.