Are humans superior?

[delboy]

I recently heard someone say that they thought humans were obviously the most superior species. I found it difficult to argue against, but it didn't seem right to see it that way. I guess it's not a very scientific question because it's open to opinion. It also seemed a slightly arrogant way to view us, and one which could lead to abusing our position in the natural world.

Any thoughts?

[Phi for All]

I recently heard someone say that they thought humans were obviously the most superior species. I found it difficult to argue against, but it didn't seem right to see it that way. I guess it's not a very scientific question because it's open to opinion. It also seemed a slightly arrogant way to view us, and one which could lead to abusing our position in the natural world.

Any thoughts?

 

It IS arrogant, but it's less opinion-based and more contextual. We're superior when it comes to intelligence and tool-use, but toss us in the water with nothing else and many creatures become superior to us. And not just sharks; a Humboldt squid, at about a meter and a half, could kill you just by pulling you underwater.

 

There is no superior creature, just superior skills for different situations and environments.

 

Overall though, one of our superior traits is that we're very good at making sure we don't get caught without our tools and the brains we use them with. Together with integrated cooperation on a huge level and really great communication skills, we can control many parts of our environment, and that gives us superiority in lots of areas.

 

And you're absolutely right, we should NOT abuse our position in the natural world (very nicely put), for we very much are a part of it.

[chadn737]

Yeah we are superior. Maybe we aren't the fastest or the strongest, but we are the most intelligent and can overcome nearly any disadvantage as a result. I think that makes us superior. Is it arrogant...probably, but who cares, it is what it is. Should we abuse it. No. The advantage of being intelligent is that we can realize the problems with environmental destruction and address it.

[Moontanman]

Yeah we are superior. Maybe we aren't the fastest or the strongest, but we are the most intelligent and can overcome nearly any disadvantage as a result. I think that makes us superior. Is it arrogant...probably, but who cares, it is what it is. Should we abuse it. No. The advantage of being intelligent is that we can realize the problems with environmental destruction and address it.

 

We are the most intelligent as measured by whom? Us? With out access to the knowledge and skills of others we are not superior and the measure of superiority is not exactly objective. We can put tools to better use than most animals and we record knowledge for later use but before we developed the technology to do those things were weren't exactly king of the world. We should be careful as to assumptions of superiority, if a fish is compared to a bird by the things a bird can do but the fish can't the fish looks pitiful but turn it around and he bird is inferior. It's completely subjective to claim we are superior... Aliens might judge us quite differently than we do our selves and think a sperm whale is the most intelligent due to it's huge and complex brain. If we could communicate with a sperm whale we might find them enormously intelligent with a complex language and philosophical ability far beyond anything we can even imagine. Comparing apples and oranges is seldom an accurate way to judge the merits of anything...

[chadn737]

We are the most intelligent as measured by whom? Us? With out access to the knowledge and skills of others we are not superior and the measure of superiority is not exactly objective. We can put tools to better use than most animals and we record knowledge for later use but before we developed the technology to do those things were weren't exactly king of the world. We should be careful as to assumptions of superiority, if a fish is compared to a bird by the things a bird can do but the fish can't the fish looks pitiful but turn it around and he bird is inferior. It's completely subjective to claim we are superior... Aliens might judge us quite differently than we do our selves and think a sperm whale is the most intelligent due to it's huge and complex brain. If we could communicate with a sperm whale we might find them enormously intelligent with a complex language and philosophical ability far beyond anything we can even imagine. Comparing apples and oranges is seldom an accurate way to judge the merits of anything...

 

By any standard we are the most intelligent. No, we can't swim like the fish or fly like the bird, but we can out perform any species when it comes to problem solving. How many birds have gone to space or the depths of the ocean? Maybe we are morons compared to some hypothetical alien species, but that is so hypothetical to not be worth considering. Sperm whales may be intelligent by some standard, but again, no sperm whale has ever discovered General Relativity or gone to space. Sperm whales can dive deep, but man, with his brain, has dived even deeper. Have you watched Sea Quest recently, because this argument reminds me of one of their worst episodes.

 

I don't go in for this faux "humility" etc where we deny obvious facts for no benefit. I understand the reasoning for it. There is this delusion that if we convince ourselves that other species are somehow our equal or superior that we will reach some sort of ecological harmony. Its why in certain environmentalist circles you encounter this idea of "speciesism". Its an attempt to twist the arm of people into a certain mentality. I'm all for conservation, I have been supporting it all my life, but I don't need to buy into obvious falsehoods to encourage me to do this.

Edited March 6, 2014 by chadn737

[Sensei]

I recently heard someone say that they thought humans were obviously the most superior species. I found it difficult to argue against, but it didn't seem right to see it that way.

 

If you're superior, try beating chimp in memory test like this:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A

Edited March 6, 2014 by Sensei

[chadn737]

 

If you're superior, try beating chimp in memory test like this:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A

 

That's a very one dimensional measure. Memory =/= intelligence.

[Moontanman]

By any standard we are the most intelligent. No, we can't swim like the fish or fly like the bird, but we can out perform any species when it comes to problem solving. How many birds have gone to space or the depths of the ocean? Maybe we are morons compared to some hypothetical alien species, but that is so hypothetical to not be worth considering. Sperm whales may be intelligent by some standard, but again, no sperm whale has ever discovered General Relativity or gone to space. Sperm whales can dive deep, but man, with his brain, has dived even deeper. Have you watched Sea Quest recently, because this argument reminds me of one of their worst episodes.

How can you compare a sperm whale with us by saying they have no technology, they also have no hands, their intelligence cannot be compared to ours in any manner that requires hands..

 

I don't go in for this faux "humility" etc where we deny obvious facts for no benefit. I understand the reasoning for it. There is this delusion that if we convince ourselves that other species are somehow our equal or superior that we will reach some sort of ecological harmony. Its why in certain environmentalist circles you encounter this idea of "speciesism". Its an attempt to twist the arm of people into a certain mentality. I'm all for conservation, I have been supporting it all my life, but I don't need to buy into obvious falsehoods to encourage me to do this.

Faux humility? I have no idea what you are asserting...

[Ringer]

That's a very one dimensional measure. Memory =/= intelligence.

Did you not say, "by any standard"? If you want to measure accomplishments I would say E. coli have us beat. They've been everywhere we have, but have another species do all the work for them. Also, if our bacteria die we die, if we die our bacteria just move.

[iNow]

Yep, superior! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! Woot!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say more than anything that your friend lacks perspective and is ignoring all of the great many examples that disprove his claim.

[delboy]

 

It IS arrogant, but it's less opinion-based and more contextual. We're superior when it comes to intelligence and tool-use, but toss us in the water with nothing else and many creatures become superior to us. And not just sharks; a Humboldt squid, at about a meter and a half, could kill you just by pulling you underwater.

 

There is no superior creature, just superior skills for different situations and environments.

 

I'm not sure that a science/evolution based answer is the best one. I semi-seriously suggested that maybe Krill were superior to us because they had more biomass and vastly more individuals than us. I was ridiculed a bit of course. But I do find it difficult to get away from thinking, when you stand back and make an overall judgement, we are superior. But I also feel uncomfortable with that view - there does seem something wrong with it.

 

I think that makes us superior. Is it arrogant...probably, but who cares, it is what it is.

 

I just think to be arrogant and not care about being arrogant normally comes back to bite you somehow.

 

By any standard we are the most intelligent.

 

 

That's a very one dimensional measure. Memory =/= intelligence.

 

Memory is one standard of intelligence, and by that particular memory standard chimpanzees are more intelligent than us.

 

I'd say more than anything that your friend lacks perspective and is ignoring all of the great many examples that disprove his claim.

 

Maybe the environmental aspect is why we shouldn't feel superior, because our intelligence is never going to give us complete control over nature to neutralise any impact we may have.

 

But I'm never comfortable with the guilt trip message about our species. Partly because I believe any species who had reached our position would have done something similar. And partly because environmental damage comes mainly from the effect of the entire population but we all have to make decisions based on our own individual lives and what our genes tell us to do.

[Ophiolite]

 

That's a very one dimensional measure. Memory =/= intelligence.

Here is the process you have been using.

1. Identify the things that humans are good at.

2. Assert that these things are more important than the things humans are not good at.

3. Observe that we are good at these important things.

4. Conclude that we are superior.

 

I agree with you. It's not arrogant. It's just stupid.

[Unity+]

Yep, superior! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! Woot!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say more than anything that your friend lacks perspective and is ignoring all of the great many examples that disprove his claim.

I think you must realize that all mammals contain traits related to killing their own race. A mammal's mistakes shouldn't automatically declare it inferior to another.

[Phi for All]

 

I'm not sure that a science/evolution based answer is the best one. I semi-seriously suggested that maybe Krill were superior to us because they had more biomass and vastly more individuals than us. I was ridiculed a bit of course. But I do find it difficult to get away from thinking, when you stand back and make an overall judgement, we are superior. But I also feel uncomfortable with that view - there does seem something wrong with it.

 

A science/evolution-based answer is the most trustworthy. This issue has a lot of emotional baggage tied to it, and emotional choices aren't always rational. We look around and see what we've created and it's easy to feel superior. But as others have pointed out, we need other species and can't assume our needs could be met without them.

 

This reminds me of the class distinctions that are moving towards a critical mass in our socio-political landscape. When the top 1% feel superior to the other 99% because they own the companies that create the jobs, they forget that they need the 99% to do those jobs. They wouldn't have companies without the workers that make things happen, and similarly, we could not have gotten where we are without all the other species doing their parts to make our environments stable and flourishing.

[chadn737]

Did you not say, "by any standard"? If you want to measure accomplishments I would say E. coli have us beat. They've been everywhere we have, but have another species do all the work for them. Also, if our bacteria die we die, if we die our bacteria just move.

 

Nope, I said "by any standard we are the most intelligent".

 

When you take a phrase or sentence out of context, that is the fallacy known as "quote mining."

How can you compare a sperm whale with us by saying they have no technology, they also have no hands, their intelligence cannot be compared to ours in any manner that requires hands..

 

 

Faux humility? I have no idea what you are asserting...

 

If they were more intelligent than us, then why would hands be a limitation? Shouldn't they be able to overcome that with their amazing problem solving abilities?

 

Faux humility. I honestly don't think you or anyone else here honestly believes that sperm whales are more intelligent than humans. I also don't believe anyone truly believes that a dog or a cat or a deer is their equal or superior. Yet we put on this display of "humility" where we put down human abilities and to what end? Its like if Usain Bolt were to go around saying that he is no faster than anyone else. We all know that its not true. He knows its not true, its faux humility.

Yep, superior! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! Woot!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say more than anything that your friend lacks perspective and is ignoring all of the great many examples that disprove his claim.

 

Superiority is not the same thing as "good". Usain Bolt is a superior runner to nearly every human on Earth. Does that make him a good person? No. Does the fact that humans are the most intelligent creatures and superior to others as a result of their problem solving ability make them "good"...no. Lets not make the logical fallacy of equivocating these two concepts.

 

A science/evolution-based answer is the most trustworthy. This issue has a lot of emotional baggage tied to it, and emotional choices aren't always rational. We look around and see what we've created and it's easy to feel superior. But as others have pointed out, we need other species and can't assume our needs could be met without them.

 

This reminds me of the class distinctions that are moving towards a critical mass in our socio-political landscape. When the top 1% feel superior to the other 99% because they own the companies that create the jobs, they forget that they need the 99% to do those jobs. They wouldn't have companies without the workers that make things happen, and similarly, we could not have gotten where we are without all the other species doing their parts to make our environments stable and flourishing.

 

It goes the other way too in terms of dependence. Most domesticated species that we rely on do not fare well without human intervention. Nearly all domesticated crops would be easily outcompeted by wild species because the adaptations that make them superior domesticated crops (loss of dehiscence, etc) are a severe disadvantage in the wild.

 

I find the "social class" analogy to be rather poor in this respects because you're not really talking about an evolved distinction in ability. The 1% are not in evolutionary terms different in ability than the 99%. If we were to eliminate the 1%, there would arise another 1% from the 99%. If we were to eliminate humans, those domesticated species that we depend on would likely go extinct in the face of competition from wild species. In contrast, we humans do have the ability to develop new resources. We are not dependent upon any one species for food or survival. We are an extremely adaptable species. Thats what we evolved to be. At one time we depended on large wild game. We killed off many of those species, yet we did not go extinct because we changed food sources. If you want to use the social class analogy, if the factory workers go on strike, the big bosses hire scabs to do it for them.

 

I don't think this means that humans are not at risk of destruction, but we are at risk of destruction from ourselves. Sperm whales aren't going to kill of humans.

Edited March 6, 2014 by chadn737

[Ringer]

Nope, I said "by any standard we are the most intelligent".

 

When you take a phrase or sentence out of context, that is the fallacy known as "quote mining."

It's only a fallacy when the context changes the meaning, which it didn't. Memory is one measurement of intelligence.

[chadn737]

It's only a fallacy when the context changes the meaning, which it didn't. Memory is one measurement of intelligence.

 

Indeed, like when you responded to my argument regarding intelligence with the superiority of E. coli: "If you want to measure accomplishments I would say E. coli have us beat. They've been everywhere we have, but have another species do all the work for them. Also, if our bacteria die we die, if we die our bacteria just move."

 

That had nothing to do with intelligence.

 

That being said, yes, memory is a measure of intelligence. I concede that fact to you. But as I said in reply to your video, its a one-dimensional measure that does not factor in other components that compose "general intelligence". We recognize this fact in everyday life. There are people who are store houses of useless knowledge, but who we would not consider "intelligent" or exceptionally so in comparison to other people.

[Ringer]

Indeed, like when you responded to my argument regarding intelligence with the superiority of E. coli: "If you want to measure accomplishments I would say E. coli have us beat. They've been everywhere we have, but have another species do all the work for them. Also, if our bacteria die we die, if we die our bacteria just move."

 

That had nothing to do with intelligence.

I agree it has nothing to do with intelligence, I never said it did. That's why I specifically stated that I was measuring accomplishments instead of intelligence.

 

 

That being said, yes, memory is a measure of intelligence. I concede that fact to you. But as I said in reply to your video, its a one-dimensional measure that does not factor in other components that compose "general intelligence". We recognize this fact in everyday life. There are people who are store houses of useless knowledge, but who we would not consider "intelligent" or exceptionally so in comparison to other people.

I never posted a video, and we never stated we are measuring general intelligence. Not to mention just measuring g factors to say that humans are superior is using a measurement made specifically for humans to measure other species. Like Ophiolite said, you are using a metric of making human cognitive traits important while minimizing all other factors.

 

Humans are an amazing species, I don't deny that. But it's ignorant to think that because we are good at the things we consider important (obviously) that we are superior. In effect it's like having a professional basketball player and a professional rugby player and saying rugby player is superior because he plays rugby better. To measure superiority one most define what metrics are being used. Generally, there is no superior species unless parameters are defined.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Ringer

[pears]

Before a sensible discussion can take place first one must define "superior".

[chadn737]

I agree it has nothing to do with intelligence, I never said it did. That's why I specifically stated that I was measuring accomplishments instead of intelligence.

 

If you agree that it had nothing to do with intelligence then your response was out of context to what I said....hence quote mining.

 

I never posted a video, and we never stated we are measuring general intelligence. Not to mention just measuring g factors to say that humans are superior is using a measurement made specifically for humans to measure other species. Like Ophiolite said, you are using a metric of making human cognitive traits important while minimizing all other factors.

 

Humans are an amazing species, I don't deny that. But it's ignorant to think that because we are good at the things we consider important (obviously) that we are superior. In effect it's like having a professional basketball player and a professional rugby player and saying rugby player is superior because he plays rugby better. To measure superiority one most define what metrics are being used. Generally, there is no superior species unless parameters are defined.

 

My apologies, I confused you with the person posting a video since you responded to my reply on that. Its a bit confusing because you took two different posts in response to two different individuals and responded to them outside of the context in which they were written.

 

I disagree that this is analogous to the specific contexts of sports. Intelligence is a Swiss army knife. It allows a species to adapt to any environment or circumstance. Humans can dive deeper than sperm whales and survive, we can fly higher and faster than any bird, we can survive in everything from the harshest desert to the highest mountains to the most disease ridden tropical forest because we can adapt, thanks to our intelligence. The ability to adapt to any circumstances I think is a general metric that applies to all creatures. Not only can we adapt, but we can be the dominant species in any habitat, reshaping the habitat to our whim. I think that is a very general argument that transcends specific contexts.

Edited March 6, 2014 by chadn737

[Phi for All]

I find the "social class" analogy to be rather poor in this respects because you're not really talking about an evolved distinction in ability. The 1% are not in evolutionary terms different in ability than the 99%. If we were to eliminate the 1%, there would arise another 1% from the 99%. If we were to eliminate humans, those domesticated species that we depend on would likely go extinct in the face of competition from wild species. In contrast, we humans do have the ability to develop new resources. We are not dependent upon any one species for food or survival. We are an extremely adaptable species. Thats what we evolved to be. At one time we depended on large wild game. We killed off many of those species, yet we did not go extinct because we changed food sources. If you want to use the social class analogy, if the factory workers go on strike, the big bosses hire scabs to do it for them.

 

I'm fairly certain I defined the parameters of how my socio-political example reminded me of the topic we're discussing, and didn't imply anything outside those parameters. I'm not certain why you feel it needs more conformity, but I am certain I wasn't trying to make it an all-encompassing, 100% spot-on analogy.

 

Before a sensible discussion can take place first one must define "superior".

 

I think the definition we've been loosely using is fine, but an adjective needs a noun to modify. What needs definition is the context in which we're calling anything superior to anything else.

[delboy]

What needs definition is the context in which we're calling anything superior to anything else.

 

Relative success as a species?

Ability to manipulate other species for our own gain? To farm what we wish to eat or destroy what hinders us.

[Moontanman]

 

Relative success as a species?

Ability to manipulate other species for our own gain? To farm what we wish to eat or destroy what hinders us.

 

 

Ants do those things quite well.

[Phi for All]

Relative success as a species?

 

Success measured by what? Sharks are extremely successful, and have been around longer than humans.

 

Ability to manipulate other species for our own gain?

 

Other species do this, but I feel we're superior in this regard. Putting your eggs in another bird's nest is a far cry from modern animal husbandry.

 

To farm what we wish to eat or destroy what hinders us.

We're the only conscious farmers I know of, so that's a strictly human parameter.

 

Destroying what hinders us is an interesting one. Many species could destroy us in a one-on-one confrontation, but our abilities are more exponential whereas most animals can only scale up in numbers. I would contend that a bear could destroy a human, but 10 bears might have a tough time with 10 humans. We're so good at cooperative efforts and communicating the ideas our high intelligence makes possible.

[Ringer]

If you agree that it had nothing to do with intelligence then your response was out of context to what I said....hence quote mining.

The statements after the sentence where I responded to the quoted text don't need to rerespond to the same point. And it still wouldn't be quote mining, the context the statement was snipped from doesn't change the message or my response.

 

 

My apologies, I confused you with the person posting a video since you responded to my reply on that. Its a bit confusing because you took two different posts in response to two different individuals and responded to them outside of the context in which they were written.

What? I was making a point that you said by any standard we are more intelligent, when shown a standard measure of intelligence you responded with what amounted to 'that doesn't count'. Then go on to talk about the amazing things people have achieved. What does that context change about anything I have written?

 

 

I disagree that this is analogous to the specific contexts of sports. Intelligence is a Swiss army knife. It allows a species to adapt to any environment or circumstance. Humans can dive deeper than sperm whales and survive, we can fly higher and faster than any bird, we can survive in everything from the harshest desert to the highest mountains to the most disease ridden tropical forest because we can adapt, thanks to our intelligence. The ability to adapt to any circumstances I think is a general metric that applies to all creatures. Not only can we adapt, but we can be the dominant species in any habitat, reshaping the habitat to our whim. I think that is a very general argument that transcends specific contexts.

We can't, we have developed things that allow us to. The bacteria inside of us has been to all those places as well and have survived much better with less work. And if we can be dominant in any habitat why aren't we living in deep sea vents? Why aren't we living in volcanoes? Why aren't we living inside other organisms? Why aren't we living at the top of Mt. Everest?

 

I don't see how you think that general argument transcends specific contexts.

 

[edit] typos [/edit]

Edited March 7, 2014 by Ringer