Are humans superior?

[Arete]

 

we can out perform any species when it comes to problem solving.

 

 

The humble pigeon is able to accumulate empirical probabilities by observing the outcomes of numerous trials and adjusting their subsequent behavior to outperform humans in Monty Hall Dilemma trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086893/

Edited March 7, 2014 by Arete

[delboy]

 

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

 

The difficulty is, if a non scientific person says they think humans are superior, they don't really want to measure something, it's more of a gut feeling and overall view.

But measuring by biomass and distribution seems a reasonable way, and humans fare pretty well by that combination. Krill beat us for biomass. And ironically, cows and sheep are highly successful by both measures, by virtue of being very tasty to humans and very controllable. A very unusual route to evolutionary success for a prey species.

 

But I don't think many would see that as a measure of superiority. No other species can come close to the number of other species we can control, manipulate or destroy if we feel the need. Nor can they do much of what we have done. Does that make us superior. Or is the question wrong, can it not be answered in an overall way, only by some specific measurement.

[Phi for All]

The difficulty is, if a non scientific person says they think humans are superior, they don't really want to measure something, it's more of a gut feeling and overall view.

But measuring by biomass and distribution seems a reasonable way, and humans fare pretty well by that combination. Krill beat us for biomass. And ironically, cows and sheep are highly successful by both measures, by virtue of being very tasty to humans and very controllable. A very unusual route to evolutionary success for a prey species.

 

But I don't think many would see that as a measure of superiority. No other species can come close to the number of other species we can control, manipulate or destroy if we feel the need. Nor can they do much of what we have done. Does that make us superior. Or is the question wrong, can it not be answered in an overall way, only by some specific measurement.

I don't know how to say it any clearer. Superiority is a qualification that needs a great amount of detail and context in order to be a meaningful metric. We're superior to every animal in some ways, and every animal is superior to us in other ways. Claiming superiority means you accept the context in which your claim was made.

 

You can't say, "Humans are superior to ants", but you can say, "Humans are superior to ants in sheer size and destructive capabilities with regard to each other."

[CharonY]

Hmm, do we normalize by individual or by biomass?

[Sensei]

 

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

 

We're not unique in farming. Ants are cutting leafs, bringing them to nest, and rearing mushrooms, or aphids, for millions years longer than we.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphid#Ant_mutualism

[Moontanman]

 

We're not unique in farming. Ants are cutting leafs, bringing them to nest, and rearing mushrooms, or aphids, for millions years longer than we.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphid#Ant_mutualism

 

 

Yes, ants and some termites do these things, ants have livestock, farms, make and store honey, ants do quite a bit that we are aware of but sadly they don't appear to be aware...

[Fetus]

What does it mean to be superior? Are we talking physical adaptation superiority or top-of-the-foodchain superiority? I believe that there are numerous species that are physically superior to us, like the axolotl I personally do not believe that humans are superior to other beings on the physical level.

[Ten oz]

What is an appropriate definition/bar for superior when comparing species? Many species have existed much longer and in more abundance than have humans. Does that make those species superior?

 

Void of a goal or purpose I don't believe anything can be classified as superior. So unless a motive for all life is attached to the question "are humans superior" there is no context in which to answer the question. If I were to ask if gold is the most superior metal the question would be meaningless without indicating for what purpose. Gold may be superior to other metals if the purpose is to conduct electricity but inferior if the purpose is to make a hammer.