blah the Prussian Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 This is ridiculous. If Fire Emblem is not objectively superior to Superman 64, why do I value Fire Emblem over Superman 64? People have these amazing things called personal opinions. If we take for granted there is an objective value of superiority, I'd say ants are more successful and superior to us: they don't have intelligence like we do so they won't make things like nuclear bombs and destroy themselves. They don't have emotions like we do. They don't do horrible things with free will like we do. They're a lot harder to kill off than we are, if not almost impossible. We can easily make ourselves extinct with nuclear bombs but ants would do a lot better than us. They work in teams far better than we do, to such an extent that scientists call ant colonies superorganisms. There's around 1 quadrillion (1000000000000000) ants throughout the world compared to 7 billion humans. I have already stated that the reason I consider humans superior to animals is that we are more culturally, mentally, and morally advanced than them. It is not because they are more numerous. Also, your argument depends on your definition of success. Ants have not advanced nearly as much as we have, and all that teamwork won't do them any good if a human were to stomp on their hill. No other species can pose a credible threat to humans. At this point, nuclear war is not nearly as big a threat as it was. If the world did not erupt into nuclear war during the Cold War, it will not now. if you were a dolphin, would you save a dolphin or a human? others have already explained why your question doesn't prove superiority but only a cognitive bias. i can't communicate or empathize with dolphins or elephants as well as i do with humans, and humans can reciprocate altruism in a way from which i would benefit more. so of course i personally value human intelligence because that's the only kind of intelligence that i'm familiar with (it's also wired that way in our brains to begin with), but it's a big step to use that as a basis for our species being unequivocally superior to other species. If I were a dolphin, I wouldn't be smart enough to understand what was happening. While I do admit that that question was stupid, even at our most basic form, we had tribes, and we sure as hell were more intelligent than other animals. That counts for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Maybe to you it counts for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I have already stated that the reason I consider humans superior to animals is that we are more culturally, mentally, and morally advanced than them So what? Why is that objectively more important? Are you going to jump off a window when you meet an alien civilization superior to us in all areas? Why should they be better than us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 So what? Why is that objectively more important? Are you going to jump off a window when you meet an alien civilization superior to us in all areas? Why should they be better than us? Don't be ridiculous. If I meet another race superior to us in every way I would follow their example to better humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Don't be ridiculous. If I meet another race superior to us in every way I would follow their example to better humanity. Ok. So you have nothing to learn from ants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Ok. So you have nothing to learn from ants? Humanity as a whole could stand to follow ants example in teamwork. However, we are superior to them in many other ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 If I were a dolphin, I wouldn't be smart enough to understand what was happening. While I do admit that that question was stupid, even at our most basic form, we had tribes, and we sure as hell were more intelligent than other animals. That counts for something. you don't know that for sure. there is no intrinsic value to intelligence. do you believe that the end goal of evolution is to evolve species into more intelligent species? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 you don't know that for sure. there is no intrinsic value to intelligence. do you believe that the end goal of evolution is to evolve species into more intelligent species? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) okay. that's clearly not true, or even provable. evolution produces species that are the best adapted to their environments. intelligence is not a requisite for this; one only needs to observe the myriad species of insects and microorganisms that thrive in this world and are far more successful than humans ever were. furthermore, there is no target goal for evolution. it is not a process that is aware of selecting for intelligence or any quality that can be construed as a global maximum of fitness. intelligence could actually be considered a significant step backwards on the scale of evolutionary fitness. predation is, to our knowledge, a requisite for intelligence. that means that organisms who possess intelligence are at least dependent on some other form of biomass, whether it be plant or animal. intelligence also requires a large brain size, which in turn requires high metabolism and a large body that has high energy demands. the end result of all this is a macroscopic organism that is highly sensitive to sudden changes in the environment. consider the dinosaurs, who up until 65 mya were the "superior" organisms on this planet, and were also highly intelligent. a single (or a series of) cataclysmic events drove them all to extinction, whereas the less intelligent organisms survived. they were not adapted for sudden, drastic changes to the environment, nor should they have been. so tl;dr version is that you are actually wrong. evolution has no end goal. Edited February 19, 2014 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 okay. that's clearly not true, or even provable. evolution produces species that are the best adapted to their environments. intelligence is not a requisite for this; one only needs to observe the myriad species of insects and microorganisms that thrive in this world and are far more successful than humans ever were. furthermore, there is no target goal for evolution. it is not a process that is aware of selecting for intelligence or any quality that can be construed as a global maximum of fitness. intelligence could actually be considered a significant step backwards on the scale of evolutionary fitness. predation is, to our knowledge, a requisite for intelligence. that means that organisms who possess intelligence are at least dependent on some other form of biomass, whether it be plant or animal. intelligence also requires a large brain size, which in turn requires high metabolism and a large body that has high energy demands. the end result of all this is a macroscopic organism that is highly sensitive to sudden changes in the environment. consider the dinosaurs, who up until 65 mya were the "superior" organisms on this planet, and were also highly intelligent. a single (or a series of) cataclysmic events drove them all to extinction, whereas the less intelligent organisms survived. they were not adapted for sudden, drastic changes to the environment, nor should they have been. so tl;dr version is that you are actually wrong. evolution has no end goal. The dinosaurs were not going to last forever. Keep in mind that the extinction killed more than just dinosaurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Humans will become extinct in a way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The dinosaurs were not going to last forever. Keep in mind that the extinction killed more than just dinosaurs. Is this a joke? Humans aren't going to last forever either. Humans almost went extinct on 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis) because of the ego of a few men, Kennedy among them. Humans have been around for 200000 years, with the chance of going extinct any time soon thanks to nuclear weapons. Dinosaurs were around for 135 million years before finally going extinct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewjeo Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Well, that's only a specific species. Dinosauria is a much broader group. IIRC classifying something as a dinosaur is more specific than just saying mammal, but less specific than saying primate. Primates showed up very quickly after the dinosaurs disappeared, and mammals had been around a hundred million+ years before that. Even if we were to disappear tomorrow, it's not that bad a comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Well, that's only a specific species. Dinosauria is a much broader group. IIRC classifying something as a dinosaur is more specific than just saying mammal, but less specific than saying primate. Primates showed up very quickly after the dinosaurs disappeared, and mammals had been around a hundred million+ years before that. Even if we were to disappear tomorrow, it's not that bad a comparison. Yeah, dinosaurs are a clade. I was trying to show how silly it is to compare dinosaurs to humans. A more accurate comparison would be to compare dinosaurs to hominids, who have been around for 15-20 million years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Is this a joke? Humans aren't going to last forever either. Humans almost went extinct on 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis) because of the ego of a few men, Kennedy among them. Humans have been around for 200000 years, with the chance of going extinct any time soon thanks to nuclear weapons. Dinosaurs were around for 135 million years before finally going extinct. I am aware of that. No species lives forever, but humans are probably in the best position to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuxSpes Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I am aware of that. No species lives forever, but humans are probably in the best position to do so. Except Dinosaurs were killed by a meteor. In fact most large scale extinction were caused by natural catastrophes/phenomenon. Humans on the other hand are entirely responsible for the possible mass extinction that has already begun and that could very well be the end of humanity. Our society is entirely based on petroleum and on the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. Scientists already stated that large scale major climate change are unavoidable. Add to that the growing threat that overpopulation presents and we could very well be our own doom. I didn't even mention the weapons of mass destruction most developed countries are sitting on. Also, even if humans made progress since their beginning, it looks like we were never able to get rid of our greedy and our bellicose nature. Someone was trampled to death in a mall on Black Friday and the reaction of the customers when they learned that their obsession for material possessions and lack of self-control had caused someone to lose its life was to complain. This clearly shows how superior of a species we are and how much progress we made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Except Dinosaurs were killed by a meteor. In fact most large scale extinction were caused by natural catastrophes/phenomenon. Humans on the other hand are entirely responsible for the possible mass extinction that has already begun and that could very well be the end of humanity. Our society is entirely based on petroleum and on the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. Scientists already stated that large scale major climate change are unavoidable. Add to that the growing threat that overpopulation presents and we could very well be our own doom. If those governments that are capable of space flight would get off of their patooties and fund research in advanced asteroid detection and deflection technologies, we may perhaps be the first known species able to stop what would otherwise be a mass extinction event! Today's society is most certainly not "completely based on" petroleum...just really, really reliant on it. Soon, though, I think, we'll be weened off of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuxSpes Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 If those governments that are capable of space flight would get off of their patooties and fund research in advanced asteroid detection and deflection technologies, we may perhaps be the first known species able to stop what would otherwise be a mass extinction event! Today's society is most certainly not "completely based on" petroleum...just really, really reliant on it. Soon, though, I think, we'll be weened off of it. If the governments and organisms started acting in the interest of bettering life conditions, we would be able to do amazing things. However, they're busy giving money to their buddies and warring between each other. I agree that really reliant is the better term. It's just that most of our products are now imported, which works because petroleum is so cheap. But when the reserves run dry, we'll have to rethink how our societies work. It's just that the inevitable depletion of petroleum resources, the destruction of biodiversity, the climate change and the overpopulation problems all add up to create a pretty grim picture of the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Pretty grim, but not ultimately destructive. Even in the case that radical climate change becomes a worrying problem, it won't spell destruction of the human race so much as limit it. And that is assuming that humanity will develop nothing technologically or socially to combat these problems as they become problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Pretty grim, but not ultimately destructive. Even in the case that radical climate change becomes a worrying problem, it won't spell destruction of the human race so much as limit it. And that is assuming that humanity will develop nothing technologically or socially to combat these problems as they become problematic. He said basically what I thought. Also, everyone is forgetting that we were at a much greater risk of nuclear war in the Cold War. If we did not go to war then, we will not now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 For that matter, it's a common view that the nuclear buildup during the Cold War was one of the most primary reasons actual military conflict never arose. The threat of an MAD scenario left both sides increasingly reticent to battle one another as time went on. And with today's global economy, the notion of another World War is more than a bit preposterous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) For that matter, it's a common view that the nuclear buildup during the Cold War was one of the most primary reasons actual military conflict never arose. The threat of an MAD scenario left both sides increasingly reticent to battle one another as time went on. And with today's global economy, the notion of another World War is more than a bit preposterous. Nuclear deterrence might actually be true for small scale war, but it's plain stupidity to deny that there's always the chance of humanity going extinct from a nuclear war. Just 50 years ago, Kennedy said there was a 33.3%-50 chance of a nuclear war. It obviously matters if the person with the power to start a nuclear war thought that it was likely. You'd just either have to be ignorant beyond belief or just not very sharp to not see this. It might not be as great an issue today, but it's discomforting to know that an egotistical loon can cause the death of a great portion of humanity if he/she becomes the president of the US or Russia. Edited February 20, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Biological/Chemical WMDs are more effective than Nuclear, since you can keep their cities after everyone is dead. Edited February 21, 2014 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Biological/Chemical WMDs are more effective than Nuclear, since you can keep their cities after everyone is dead. Really? You'd probably have to wait a hundred or more years for that city to be useful, if ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Nuclear deterrence might actually be true for small scale war, but it's plain stupidity to deny that there's always the chance of humanity going extinct from a nuclear war. Just 50 years ago, Kennedy said there was a 33.3%-50 chance of a nuclear war. It obviously matters if the person with the power to start a nuclear war thought that it was likely. You'd just either have to be ignorant beyond belief or just not very sharp to not see this. It might not be as great an issue today, but it's discomforting to know that an egotistical loon can cause the death of a great portion of humanity if he/she becomes the president of the US or Russia. You are right. The greatest threat to humanity is ourselves. That is why it is imperative to ban nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.