Humanity the dominant race?

[Talon]

Do you think it is?

I don't, and here's why:

We believe in "Gods" that supposedly created us to be the dominant race. We, as a whole, have a very strong God Complex, and Superiority Complex. Neither are a great thing to have.

We sit around and do nothing all day (Most of us, anyways.). We're lazy, and don't even really work to get want we want anymore. We're evolving to be taller, but weaker. We're, very rapidly, starting to use up the resources that we have up faster and faster.

We're physically one of the weakest races.
Our brains have developed to be amazingly intelligent, but we still don't know how to use it correctly.
We're destroying ourselves.
We kill each other just for the fun of it.
We round up hundreds, even thousands, of other animals just to kill them, pack there bits into boxes, and sell them, for money.
Insects are much more likely to survive the apocalypse than we are.
If we trip and fall, we'll get a scratch. Normal. But, we'll cry over it and think we're about to die.


Now, we do have some very strong points in our selves:

We are strong enough - or stupid enough, depending on how you look at it - to preform surgery on ourselves.
Unlike most other animals, when we break a bone, most of us don't go into shock and die. We put a plaster case around the bone, and wait for it to heal.
We are very good at getting rid of bacteria out of us. However, we never get rid of viruses. Once you get one, you have it forever. It'll just go dormant inside of you. That's where shingles (The virus) comes from. When you get chicken pox, the virus sticks in you, and when it comes out of it's dormancy, it turns into Shingles.

We are physically strong, but not as strong as most other races. We have our intelligence on our side. We can outsmart animals, and win a fight against them.
Go fight a bear, and don't run away. You'll die, but you'll last much longer than you think. We do have very strong animal instincts, and when we need to use them, they come out, and they are very scary. We are much stronger than we appear, the amount of mass our muscles actually have is very deceiving, because they are compact. We are very very strong. Even the weakest of us are strong enough to move 2 or 3 hundred pound boulders. The term 'super-human' makes no sense, as we all are like that, we just don't really ever have to use that hidden power. People have moved thousand pound boulders that slid on top of them. When we use all of our muscles strength we are strong enough to move thousands of pounds. But we can't use all of our strength. When we do, our muscles tear themselves apart to save our lives. Even using all of our muscle power, we can't out-power a bear.



Just my two cents.

Do you think humanity is the dominant race?

 

[Crunch Punch]

Humanity is the dominant race. I don't see any other animals keeping us as pets just for the heck of it.

 

[Outlier]

Humanity is the dominant race. I don't see any other animals keeping us as pets just for the heck of it.

You say that now, but just wait until the aliens come down to earth and humble enslave us.

 

[Talon]

Humanity is the dominant race. I don't see any other animals keeping us as pets just for the heck of it.

Only because we think we are. I don't see any other animals killing each other for fun, and destroying the world. Your entitled to your opinion, and I won't say that you're wrong, but I will say that I disagree with your opinion.

 

[Crunch Punch]

Only because we think we are. I don't see any other animals killing each other for fun, and destroying the world. Your entitled to your opinion, and I won't say that you're wrong, but I will say that I disagree with your opinion.

I'm not saying humanity is the best race in the world; horrible things have happened in the past in human history in what we do to each other and these things are still happening right now. We aren't the nicest species in the world, no way.

But if the question is who is the most dominant in the world I can wholeheartedly say humans are right now. Our intelligence itself has helped us be the most dominant for over a century; we've taken over animal territories and built our own cities and towns and living spaces so that us humans can thrive. While wild animals still fight to survive and hunt for prey so that they can feed their family most of us can just go to the supermarket and buy food to last for days and weeks. We have luxury such as art, music, sport, technology and other things. Heck, we have zoos so that animals themselves can keep us entertained. We don't need to fight to survive anymore, and that is what makes us dominant imo.

 

[Nick]

I'm inclined to agree with everything Scyke'd has posted.

I don't think very highly of humankind as a whole, but we absolutely stand as the dominant race on earth.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Humanity is the dominant race. I don't see any other animals keeping us as pets just for the heck of it.

This is actually a really foolish perspective and I'll explain why.

Humans, first off, are a very LARGE species compared to most life. It would be incredibly impractical for other relatively intelligent life such as, say, a magpie, or an octopus to maintain and take full care of a human. Humans also have these things called "hands" that make them able to make tools that make it easier to tame animals.

Other animals have "tamed" other creatures for livestock like purposes. It is not unique to humans.

Also, there are animals in the world that have much more successful populations than humans do. Look at the Red Billed Quelea of Africa. This little bird is the most populous non-domesticated bird in the world with at least 1.5 billion active pairs. For an animal that doesn't live even a tenth as long as humans do on average that's ****ing impressive, especially considering that they don't rely on technology or anything like that to maintain their population. Some estimates go upwards towards 10 billion individual birds, which dwarfs our 7 billion humans. And remember, that's without "major medical advances". The birds are so populous that there are extermination attempts on them that are about as successful as not successful.


On Earth, humans are one of the most dominant forces in shaping our environment, but by no means are we the ultimate. Think about pandemics that kill millions of people at a time, such as the Spanish Flu. Humans are successful as a species for the same reason the passenger pigeon was - it exists in such a large population there isn't much that other animals can do about it. Think about how quickly society and our ability to use technology we take for granted would be if out population was shredded by something like a virus or something, creating small localized populations of humans. Those relying on technology, importation of goods and "first world society" would not live long. We would be vulnerable to the earth's natural and biological factors that could easily destroy such populations that rely on their numbers and organization to function.

In the bigger scale, saying that humans are the "purpose to everything" is pretty foolish when you consider they have only been proven to exist on one planet in an entire universe of absolutely unimaginable size. Even in the scope of our galaxy our presence is unique. I think that if "God" had a goal it would be the creation of stars, not humans, as he would actually have been successful at that. Stars are beautiful, giant, magnificent beings. To me, the true beauty of life is that we spawned from that from simply the actions of one of these in a universe full of quadrillions of them.

 

[LoudSilence]

This is actually a really foolish perspective and I'll explain why.

Nothing you said makes his perspective "foolish", though. Regardless of how much/little you think of the human race, our intellect has allowed us to become dominant, like it or not.

That said, it's funny how out of all the creatures on earth, we are the only ones that need to destroy in order to live. Think about it; every other creature lives in relative harmony with its environment, but we just cannot seem to do that. As if we were the odd ones out...

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

That said, it's funny how out of all the creatures on earth, we are the only ones that need to destroy in order to live. Think about it; every other creature lives in relative harmony with its environment, but we just cannot seem to do that. As if we were the odd ones out...

There are many examples of creatures who have difficulty living together with the same species. A common household pet, the Betta fish, is notorious for attacking and even killing others of its species. This is not unusual behaviour.

 

[Honest]

This is more suited for Discussions and Debates, so I'm going to move this there.


-moved.

 

[LoudSilence]

There are many examples of creatures who have difficulty living together with the same species. A common household pet, the Betta fish, is notorious for attacking and even killing others of its species. This is not unusual behaviour.

But on the same scale as humans? Does any other creature carve into forests and valleys the way we do create oversized living spaces, destroying countless homes and ecosystems in the process? We have none of the qualities that other animals do to survive in their natural habitats; we are forced to change our surroundings or die. And that's exactly what we do, at the expense of everything else. Because we can and must.

If not for using our brains (as little as we do), the number of species extinct would be a lot larger because of us. Maybe other animals also don't really "fit in", but I don't think any are as out of place as we are.

 

[Sopheria]

Depends on your criterion of "dominant". Obviously we're not completely dominant in the sense that for all our brainpower and opposable thumbs and ability to read and write, none of that means anything against a wild cheetah.

But, I'd still say we're the dominant species because we're the most widespread, and we have the most influence on the Earth overall--for better or worse. We essentially have the potential to destroy the entire Earth in a matter of minutes. Not saying that's a good thing, but I think that makes us the dominant ones.

 

[Sir Codin]

Last time I checked, I don't see any species besides us building all this stuff around us, establishing an economy, debating philosophies, performing complex mathematics, or inventing things that make up for our lack of "natural" strength.

As for killing each other over petty things, I think I've read that ants and chimpanzees do that as well.

 

[Sopheria]

Last time I checked, I don't see any species besides us building all this stuff around us, establishing an economy, debating philosophies, performing complex mathematics, or inventing things that make up for our lack of "natural" strength.

As for killing each other over petty things, I think I've read that ants and chimpanzees do that as well.

Well, that only makes us dominant by our own standards. I mean, a cheetah could just as easily say "I don't see any other species running at 80 mph" I mean, I know they couldn't literally say that, but you get my point. Our intelligence is just our unique trait, just like whales' size and giraffes' long necks. In itself it doesn't signify dominance except by our own standard, which is circular reasoning.

I agree though, we're definitely not the only species that kills each other for petty things. Black widow spiders, for example, kill their mates after they're done mating. Not all of them do it of course, but with us humans, if we found out that happened even once, the UN would call for all the leaders of the world to form a resolution. We're definitely not the only ones that kill for petty reasons.

 

[BadPokemon]

We ARE the dominant species. We were CREATED to be the dominant species. No other animal is as smart as us. 1 v 1 on a cheatah. A human could win with the right tactics. We were created to have hands and to be omnivores. We created weapons, and tools. Yes, we do kill each other. Most of the time they are crazy people (I'm not talking about war). We do go to war and we do have people who want to take over the world. That doesn't mean we can't be the dominant species. What other living creature could have made the airplane or build the Dubai Tower. I did say created, there was no big boom and the world was created. That is a different argument, though.

 

[Beloved]

Um, Bad, I hate to break it to you, but 1 on 1, the cheetah would win 9 times out of 10. I will leave the whole, "we were created" part alone, since I do not feel like getting into a religion vs. evolution debate. Suffice it to say that your statements are in fact your own opinion, and not actual fact. Without our tools, we are one of the weakest creatures on the earth.

We are far from the dominant species. There are more insects out there than there are people. Fact of the matter is that our bodies are frail and weak compared to different species. Put us out in the arctic without warm clothing, we die. The polar bears, on the other hand, will take a little swim to get food in water that would kill us. Toss us into the Sahara, and we would die from dehydration without water, where as many species of scorpions and lizards make it just fine.

Even in temperate climates, we are at a disadvantage against the animals that normally live there. That is why we need technology to level the field. Take that away, and we are just another link in the food chain.

 

[Kimmar96]

I don't believe in God, and I don't think we were created by someone. We're the smartest race in the world, but we're not dominant. By the way, i love humanity =3
sorry for my language ç_ç

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Tools are a huge part of our identity as a species. You have to factor them in the equation if you are speaking of "dominance." They are just a much a tool to us as a Cheetas claws or a Bird's beak is to it. Of course many animals would beat us in a phyiscal contest--they need the extra phyiscal attributes in order to surive. We, as humans, don't--and that is because we are self-aware and intelligent. While other animals met the needs of the world with their phenotypes(A giraffes long's neck to reach the leaves, a bird's beak to get seeds from a tree) we met them with our tools. How is that a bad thing? How does that not count for us? We used our intelligence to create this tools--I'd like to see any other species create technology as advanced as ours. Oh wait... they can't. I think our intelligence goes a long way to prove we are dominant. We can't beat a Cheetah in a foot race, but what does that matter? We have cars, bikes, trains, planes, boats... we don't need to get around on feet because we have desgined better, more efficent methods of trasnportation.

While we might not be the most numerous of species, that is irrelelvant as well. One person alone could squash hundreds upon hundreds of bugs simply by pressing them betwen two fingers. If everyone did that, I'm sure we would see the insect populations dwindle quite rapidly. We, as humans, can exert total control of the environment around us in a way that no other species can. You are making very invalid comparisons, here. Toss us into the arctic without warm clothing and we will die. No ****. We have nothing to keep us warm. Shave a polar bear and try having him do the same thing. I gaurantee he will not fare anywhere near as well as a Polar Bear who still has his coat. As for the scorpions and lizards, they have various methods of saving water until they need to consume it. We, as humans, have the same methods--although they are not built into our body. We have water bottles, camel packs, jugs... essentially anything that can hold water can be used. Those species aren't living without water, they just have the necesarry phenotype that allows them procure water in arid envrionments and ration it out just as their body needs it.

We might need technology to level the field, but the technology is a product of our intelligence. It is not like we one day came to this Earth and all this wonderful technology was here. No, we used our ingenuity and creativity(traits of the human species) to create such tools. You have to count them.

 

[Beloved]

Tools are a huge part of our identity as a species. You have to factor them in the equation if you are speaking of "dominance." They are just a much a tool to us as a Cheetas claws or a Bird's beak is to it. Of course many animals would beat us in a phyiscal contest--they need the extra phyiscal attributes in order to surive. We, as humans, don't--and that is because we are self-aware and intelligent. While other animals met the needs of the world with their phenotypes(A giraffes long's neck to reach the leaves, a bird's beak to get seeds from a tree) we met them with our tools. How is that a bad thing? How does that not count for us? We used our intelligence to create this tools--I'd like to see any other species create technology as advanced as ours. Oh wait... they can't. I think our intelligence goes a long way to prove we are dominant. We can't beat a Cheetah in a foot race, but what does that matter? We have cars, bikes, trains, planes, boats... we don't need to get around on feet because we have desgined better, more efficent methods of trasnportation.

While we might not be the most numerous of species, that is irrelelvant as well. One person alone could squash hundreds upon hundreds of bugs simply by pressing them betwen two fingers. If everyone did that, I'm sure we would see the insect populations dwindle quite rapidly. We, as humans, can exert total control of the environment around us in a way that no other species can. You are making very invalid comparisons, here. Toss us into the arctic without warm clothing and we will die. No ****. We have nothing to keep us warm. Shave a polar bear and try having him do the same thing. I gaurantee he will not fare anywhere near as well as a Polar Bear who still has his coat. As for the scorpions and lizards, they have various methods of saving water until they need to consume it. We, as humans, have the same methods--although they are not built into our body. We have water bottles, camel packs, jugs... essentially anything that can hold water can be used. Those species aren't living without water, they just have the necesarry phenotype that allows them procure water in arid envrionments and ration it out just as their body needs it.

We might need technology to level the field, but the technology is a product of our intelligence. It is not like we one day came to this Earth and all this wonderful technology was here. No, we used our ingenuity and creativity(traits of the human species) to create such tools. You have to count them.

We created the technology we have, animals did not create their own natural attributes, so no, you cannot count our technology into the equation. The only way that would be possible is for us to build it there during the encounter from what is lying around. In a hypothetical situation, and many real ones for the unfortunate, technology is not around when we need it. For instance, a tribesman in Africa goes out to gather berries. He instead comes face to face with a territorial lion. Not thinking that the bushes near the village would pose such risks, the tribesman did not take any weapons with him. How do you think he'd fare against the cat? Then let's say you have the same situation, but the man has a single spear with him. Do you think his odds are any better? Truth is, they aren't, because he still has to get close to the lion, who has far more weapons.

Claiming that I "must" include technology into everything is ironic when you then mock me by saying that its not like the technology was here already. As a species, we are weak and frail, and if caught off guard without our precious technology, we would never stand a chance. That is the point I am trying to prove. Animals have these things built in, while we have to create them. Yes, we are intelligent, and we are self-aware, but if we do not have technology, we are not much of a threat. In fact, in Africa, we aren't dominant, we are just another link in the chain.

As for other species using tools, believe it or not, quite a few apes use tools much like cavemen used. While they do not understand how to use computers and fire arms, they do know how to use bones like clubs. Many know that if you put a stick in an ant or termite colony, they can drive the insects into the open to catch and eat. That shows some level of intellect. Who is to say that one day in a few hundred thousand years, apes might not be the dominant species.

So, to conclude, the only technology you could use in the 1-on-1 scenarios is anything found in the animal's natural habitat, because that is what my entire post was about: natural weaponry. We humans have none, so we must devise our own. And do you know the weapons in the habitat of a cheetah? Stones, and maybe a few small sticks. You could fashion some form of weapon with these, but it would be generally ineffective against them. We humans have no natural weapons, no toxins, nor even the strength other animals our size have. So, as a species, we are weak, but I will admit that thanks to technology, we have overcome most of our shortcomings. That said, not everyone knows how to use the technology, so that would be another factor in the equation.

Finally, what happens if we run into another intelligent form of life, one that surpasses our own in the way of technology? Being the dominant species would be a thing of the past, that is what.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

We created the technology we have, animals did not create their own natural attributes, so no, you cannot count our technology into the equation. The only way that would be possible is for us to build it there during the encounter from what is lying around. In a hypothetical situation, and many real ones for the unfortunate, technology is not around when we need it. For instance, a tribesman in Africa goes out to gather berries. He instead comes face to face with a territorial lion. Not thinking that the bushes near the village would pose such risks, the tribesman did not take any weapons with him. How do you think he'd fare against the cat? Then let's say you have the same situation, but the man has a single spear with him. Do you think his odds are any better? Truth is, they aren't, because he still has to get close to the lion, who has far more weapons.

1) We might have created our tools, but it was using the natural abilities that we were born with as a species. So yes, you can factor technology into the equation because if we did not possess the attributes that we alone possess(remarkably developed sentience, greater intelligence) then such tools would never exist. If, say, the tools were somehow magically there by themselves then you would have some weight to your argument. As it is now, you're simply denying us(humans) the ability to use one of natural resouces. To use an example as you did, imagine the lion had no claws or teeth. He is still probably phyiscal stronger than a human in many ways, but without his powerful tools of rending and tearing, a man would stand a much better chance. That is entirely irrelevant and brings me to point number 2.

2.) You can't let one example speak for an entire species. Just because humanity maintains dominance over the planet does not automatically mean that every human on the planet will come out on top in every encounter with a species that is non-human. I never said that, and I honestly don't know how you reached such a conclusion. Humanity can be dominant, even if some humans die to lions. Sure, that one guy forgot his spear. But imagine if the man had brought a high caliber hunting rifle and spotted the lion from a distance. Who would stand a chance now? It's not as if the lion has any attributes(such as intelligence on the same level as we humans) that would allow him to counter such behavior. Therefore, humanity is dominant over lions and any other species that are prey to the same draw backs as our little lion friend here.

Claiming that I "must" include technology into everything is ironic when you then mock me by saying that its not like the technology was here already. As a species, we are weak and frail, and if caught off guard without our precious technology, we would never stand a chance. That is the point I am trying to prove. Animals have these things built in, while we have to create them. Yes, we are intelligent, and we are self-aware, but if we do not have technology, we are not much of a threat. In fact, in Africa, we aren't dominant, we are just another link in the chain.

You haven't really said anything different than what you said up above. Refer to what I said up there for the majority of your answer. In more concise terms: Tools are created using our natural attributes. If we did not possess said attributes, the tools would not exist. Therefore it is quite reasonable to consider the tools when discussing what defines dominance as a species.

Our intelligence can still help us do many things, actually. Even if we don't have our tools. For example, when a bear is aggressive towards you, you are told to make a lot of noise, pretend to be bigger than it. Using no tools whatsoever, but instead manipulating the behavioral patterns of the bear that we humans are oh so good at analyzing, we can come out on top of the situation. Animals act instinctually, while humans can actually plan careful thought. The tribesman you mentioned earlier obviously has lived his entire life in Africa. I doubt a lion would just happen to randomly this one day wander especially close to his village. He would know where the lions go and how close they wander. He would observe their patterns and behavior and know where is and isn't safe to go. While he couldn't be 100% certain, he would know to exercise caution, especially while alone and unarmed. Like I said above though, you can't let just one example define them all.

Imagine this, though. That is one human, not the entire species. So perhaps the lions started venturing closer than they normaly do. Well, humans, being intelligent, would begin to notice this change in the lions behavior and adapt their hunting and gathering routes accordingly. As a species, we are a stronger. Maybe not as individuals, but as a species, definitely.

As for other species using tools, believe it or not, quite a few apes use tools much like cavemen used. While they do not understand how to use computers and fire arms, they do know how to use bones like clubs. Many know that if you put a stick in an ant or termite colony, they can drive the insects into the open to catch and eat. That shows some level of intellect. Who is to say that one day in a few hundred thousand years, apes might not be the dominant species.

So, to conclude, the only technology you could use in the 1-on-1 scenarios is anything found in the animal's natural habitat, because that is what my entire post was about: natural weaponry. We humans have none, so we must devise our own. And do you know the weapons in the habitat of a cheetah? Stones, and maybe a few small sticks. You could fashion some form of weapon with these, but it would be generally ineffective against them. We humans have no natural weapons, no toxins, nor even the strength other animals our size have. So, as a species, we are weak, but I will admit that thanks to technology, we have overcome most of our shortcomings. That said, not everyone knows how to use the technology, so that would be another factor in the equation.

Finally, what happens if we run into another intelligent form of life, one that surpasses our own in the way of technology? Being the dominant species would be a thing of the past, that is what.

They use tools, yes. But you said it yourself, they are nowhere near the same complexity or sophistication as the tools we humans use. While we don't have the strength of animals like you mentioned, we outclass them in intellect. We can use things such as climbing a big rock or tree, or perhaps swimming to get away from many advesaries. While we might not have effective weapons, you could, lets say, see one rock that happens to be the one rock preventing a landslide and cause them all to fall down upon the enemy. While that is an extreme example, it merely illustrates the advantages that our intellect provides for us. We aren't as physically adept as many animals are, but our intelligence provides us ways to counter that and make up for our lack of phyiscal oomph. And again, while perhaps in the situation where he is unarmed the human would lose.. but why would he go fight lions or gorillas without weapons anyway? Sure accidents happen, but like I said before, you can't let a few examples(indvidiuals) define the whole(population).

BTW, sorry if I sound like a broken record, repeating myself a lot. Although you changed the rhetoric, you hardly had a different point in any of your sections, so I didn't know what else to say. Oh, and it is completey plausible that another species will pass us up in dominance. However, for the time being, we hold that position. If there are more intelligent life forms on this planet, they prefer to remain unknown.

EDIT: Also, where did OP get his infromation on viruses? I am very curious.