Consciousness

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Firstly, I contest "being able to take them in one-on-one battle" as a good criteria for physical superiority. Life is not a gladiatorial area. If a species has physical capabilities which enhance its effectiveness in groups, that is clearly an advantage which should be acknowledged. If a species has physical capabilities which protect it from the environment, or allow it to acquire food more easily, or let it live in an area other cannot, that's a physical advantage, too. In other words, capacity for killing things is not the defining aspect of physical superiority, and capacity for killing things in single combat even less so. Ability to survive, given equal mental/social capabilities, would be a better definition.

I figured as much; this is why I made a compound sentence. But being able to physically dominate a member of another species is far from something to be overlooked. That's great that other species learned to work as a group to accomplish things and survive, but there's still quite a bit to say about a species that can be self-sufficient and not necessarily need that reliance. Humans individually are capable of a heck of a lot... and when we work as a team, we transcend the way of life that non-humans experience.

I'd also dispute that the superiority of humans at many tasks is due to physical capabilities. Rather, I think it's primarily due to humans' capacity for learning, ability to use tools and manipulate the environment, and social nature. That is to say, mental or social capabilities rather than physical ones.

No no, I took special care to talk only about humans physical capabilities (because otherwise, c'mon, there just wouldn't be anything to argue).
In stark contrast to most non-microbial organisms, humans can and have survived all around the world in a comparatively huge variety of environmental extremes. We can swim, climb, run, and shimmy (but not fly; we fixed this by applying our mental capabilities, but I want to drive my point home by not even factoring in our biggest advantage). We can outperform most land animals in their home environments (except for the bigger critters like cheetahs, elephants, lions, etc.), and it's pretty much no contest against most marine life since their accomplishments are strictly limited by their environment to surviving encounters with and/or eating each other.
Then factor in our intelligence, and suddenly we're better beyond compare than everything else in creation to this date.

Or let's go back to the one-on-one deathmatch scenario, between a mosquito and a human. If the mosquito had human intelligence, it would simply fly out of reach, resulting in a stalemate. In other words, the mosquito has the physical capacity to avoid being killed, but a real mosquito is too stupid to use it.

If the goal was "your opponent must die in order for you to survive," as can happen in nature when two organisms fight for resources, the mosquito is screwed. The human wins.
If the goal was "survive the encounter," then the human can kill the mosquito if it gets close or ignore it if it doesn't, or even run away, completely regardless of how smart the mosquito is. The human wins (and the mosquito might, too).
In either case, the human can't easily lose. In other words, I see your point, but I don't think you've really thought it through.

Do you have any idea how many things I've murdered in my lifetime? For my convenience, even when I could safely ignore them, I've probably killed several thousands of animals. And many of those were even completely inadvertent. The only animal that has ever made me afraid for my life, or anywhere remotely close to it, is another human (granted, I also don't get out much). And in the majority of the times I've casually murdered an animal in my vicinity -- and this is my main point right here -- there was absolutely no application of my higher thinking skills. I didn't put on any special gloves or pull out a gun; I used my bare hand or foot, and there was no strategy or complicated plan to any of it.
I'd probably fare considerably worse against a lion, however, and that's why I said "the vast majority" instead of "all."

[blue_tetris]

I've always thought it was important to remember that all the species we interact with are modern species. None of them have "evolved" more than any other. A lot of people who are new to the idea of evolution get mixed up and think that humans came from monkeys and are better than monkeys. (This isn't for either Suki or Atz; this is for an initiate to the conversation.)



It's possible humans are better at certain tasks than mosquitos, and if you are a human and those tasks seem pretty important to you, you could go on to say that humans are better than mosquitos. Mosquitos are a hell of a lot better at procreating and surviving. It's why they're still around. In fact, I would posit that if mosquitos didn't have some edge over humans in some faculty, they'd have gone extinct or be in some serious trouble. Presently, their numbers aren't at risk whatsoever.

And not all human populations fare well against mosquito populations. I hear in Africa, it's Mosquitos 1: Humans 0.



But I agree with Suki, one-on-one, a human could kick a mosquito's ass straight up. No question. If they can stick you for some malaria, it might boil down to a zero-sum game.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

A lot of people who are new to the idea of evolution get mixed up and think that humans came from monkeys and are better than monkeys.

Absolutely. "Evolved from" is not necessarily "is better than," but "is different from."

It's possible humans are better at certain tasks than mosquitos, and if you are a human and those tasks seem pretty important to you, you could go on to say that humans are better than mosquitos. Mosquitos are a hell of a lot better at procreating and surviving.

I don't think there's enough basis to say that they're better at surviving. They're good enough at surviving, but it's a bit more difficult to make a comparison.
...although obviously I think humans can do it better. :p

In fact, I would posit that if mosquitos didn't have some edge over humans in some faculty, they'd have gone extinct or be in some serious trouble. Presently, their numbers aren't at risk whatsoever.

I think it's just that they haven't pissed us off enough that we do anything but ignore them for the most part. I mean, we make anti-mosquito sprays and nets and stuff, but we as a species have not risen up to do battle with the mosquitos.

And not all human populations fare well against mosquito populations. I hear in Africa, it's Mosquitos 1: Humans 0.
But I agree with Suki, one-on-one, a human could kick a mosquito's ass straight up. No question. If they can stick you for some malaria, it might boil down to a zero-sum game.

Oh, come on, if you allow mosquitos to carry diseases into the fight, you've gotta give the human modern medicine and an apache helicopter.

[Atilla]

I had a gigantic Post of Doom disputing everything point by point, but don't think it would be any more effective thanthe summary. So..

My point in all this is that calling one species physically superior doesn't really tell me anything. Let's say that a human is physically superior to an ant. Does that mean ants aren't thriving? No. Does it mean they struggle to survive in areas with humans? No. Does it mean if you put humans and ants in the similar but separate environments, the humans will typically fare better? No. Does it mean an ant poses no threat to a human? No. Does it mean a human can survive any circumstance an ant can? No. Does it mean they can't do some things that humans can? Perhaps, but ants can do some things that humans can't, too. It seems like an arbitrary thing to me, as much determined by the value you put on various traits as by the actual physical characteristics of the species involved.

EDIT: I don't think we could wipe mosquitoes out even if we did make a concerted effort. Australia has been trying to wipe out rabbits for years and we've barely made a dent. We released genetically-engineered rabbit-killing viruses and everything.

[blue_tetris]

In fact, I would posit that if mosquitos didn't have some edge over humans in some faculty, they'd have gone extinct or be in some serious trouble. Presently, their numbers aren't at risk whatsoever.

I think it's just that they haven't pissed us off enough that we do anything but ignore them for the most part. I mean, we make anti-mosquito sprays and nets and stuff, but we as a species have not risen up to do battle with the mosquitos.

Then, one of their qualities is the ability to lie below the radar of other animals. That's part of why they survived. It's a total sum thing here. Every reason why they're still alive is a reason why they are good at staying alive and have undergone as much evolution as humans. The only species that haven't evolved and survived as well as humans are the ones that are extinct.

So humans are good at doing all the human things, which is why we're safe to say with our human point of view in our human language that we're just plain better than they are. Clearly, they're good at doing insect things; else, they'd have died long ago. Dodos were not good at doing bird things and thylacines were not good at doing carnivore things.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

My point in all this is that calling one species physically superior doesn't really tell me anything. Let's say that a human is physically superior to an ant. Does that mean ants aren't thriving? No. Does it mean they struggle to survive in areas with humans? No. Does it mean if you put humans and ants in the similar but separate environments, the humans will typically fare better? No. Does it mean an ant poses no threat to a human? No. Does it mean a human can survive any circumstance an ant can? No. Does it mean they can't do some things that humans can? Perhaps, but ants can do some things that humans can't, too. It seems like an arbitrary thing to me, as much determined by the value you put on various traits as by the actual physical characteristics of the species involved.

I also understand that comparing animals is tricky and for the most part does not produce useful conclusions. But in a realm of inquiry in which it's relevant, such as a thread that asks for direct comparisons between animals, I struggle to see the point in pointing out that this practice is not useful for contexts outside of this one.

OP: "What's your favorite color?"
Tsukatu: "Red!"
Atilla: "Define 'favorite'. Also, this topic is useless."
Tsukatu: "Thanks, Atilla. Anyway, I like red!"

Then, one of their qualities is the ability to lie below the radar of other animals.

Haha, I don't think talking about a failure to fail as an ability is very accurate, either.

So humans are good at doing all the human things, which is why we're safe to say with our human point of view in our human language that we're just plain better than they are.

My fantastical brain, possibly with the help of a biology textbook, is capable of understanding what it's like to live as a bug. I can do this because bug brains are laughably less complex than mine. I know what the bugs can do and what they need to do (and probably better than they do), and after comparing my physique to theirs and considering the environments they live in, I can conclude that in the majority of cases I can perform all the things bugs can and need to do, and I can do them more effectively and more efficiently where doing so is desirable. This makes me better than a bug.

How is this not obvious?

[blue_tetris]

My fantastical brain, possibly with the help of a biology textbook, is capable of understanding what it's like to live as a bug.

Without the assistance of the Disney corporation, your insight still falls short.

[origami_alligator]

My fantastical brain, possibly with the help of a biology textbook, is capable of understanding what it's like to live as a bug. I can do this because bug brains are laughably less complex than mine. I know what the bugs can do and what they need to do (and probably better than they do), and after comparing my physique to theirs and considering the environments they live in, I can conclude that in the majority of cases I can perform all the things bugs can and need to do, and I can do them more effectively and more efficiently where doing so is desirable. This makes me better than a bug.

How is this not obvious?

Comparing them equally you would be at a loss.
Take the percentage of your own body weight that you can lift, then shrink yourself to the size of an ant and perform better than an ant. That just doesn't work. You can move heavier things than an ant as a normally sized human, but comparatively you're weaker than the ant.
Can you fly? No. So a mosquito has this advantage over you, were you to compare your surroundings equally. You don't really have a natural camouflage like the katydid or the walking stick. You're better at doing human things compared to a bug doing human things. And as a human you're probably better at doing some things that bugs can do. But overall you wouldn't be able to survive if you were put in the same conditions in your human form. You're just not equipped physically for that kind of raw strength or natural defense.

[Atilla]

I also understand that comparing animals is tricky and for the most part does not produce useful conclusions. But in a realm of inquiry in which it's relevant, such as a thread that asks for direct comparisons between animals, I struggle to see the point in pointing out that this practice is not useful for contexts outside of this one.

OP: "What's your favorite color?"
Tsukatu: "Red!"
Atilla: "Define 'favorite'. Also, this topic is useless."
Tsukatu: "Thanks, Atilla. Anyway, I like red!"

The question in the OP was whether the high mental abilities developed by humans were actually all that beneficial. This is more specific, so it doesn't suffer from the problems of asserting physical superiority. It's also only vaguely related to what you were talking about. So it's more like:

OP: "I'm thinking of buying a console. Is it worth buying a PS3 when the Wii is half the price?"
Tsukatu: "DVDs are more technological than SD cards."
Atilla: "That's... not terribly informative."
Tsukatu: "But it's so obvious!"

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Take the percentage of your own body weight that you can lift, then shrink yourself to the size of an ant and perform better than an ant. That just doesn't work.
...
You're better at doing human things compared to a bug doing human things. And as a human you're probably better at doing some things that bugs can do. But overall you wouldn't be able to survive if you were put in the same conditions in your human form. You're just not equipped physically for that kind of raw strength or natural defense.

When in your mind does shrinking a human to a bug's size make sense? What the hell does that prove? You're clearly not comparing bugs with humans anymore - you're comparing bugs to a hypothetical critter that's the size of a bug, but it sure as hell isn't a human. I'm not the size of the ant - that's one of the things that helps make me better. It makes me worse in some areas, but as I say, I think overall it's a benefit.
And you *do* know that it's small size that enables such small things to lift things several times their body weight, right? If I actually *was* that size and biologically equipped to survive that size (most of my proportions would have to change), I'd be lifting things several times my body weight, too.

Can you fly? No. So a mosquito has this advantage over you, were you to compare your surroundings equally. You don't really have a natural camouflage like the katydid or the walking stick.

And yet I do way better without. It'd probably be nifty if I could fly, and that's awesome for the mosquito that it can, but I'm better regardless. If you think I'm leaving things out, go ahead and mention how that meaningfully tips the scales.

I also understand that comparing animals is tricky and for the most part does not produce useful conclusions. But in a realm of inquiry in which it's relevant, such as a thread that asks for direct comparisons between animals, I struggle to see the point in pointing out that this practice is not useful for contexts outside of this one.

OP: "What's your favorite color?"
Tsukatu: "Red!"
Atilla: "Define 'favorite'. Also, this topic is useless."
Tsukatu: "Thanks, Atilla. Anyway, I like red!"

The question in the OP was whether the high mental abilities developed by humans were actually all that beneficial. This is more specific, so it doesn't suffer from the problems of asserting physical superiority. It's also only vaguely related to what you were talking about. So it's more like:

OP: "I'm thinking of buying a console. Is it worth buying a PS3 when the Wii is half the price?"
Tsukatu: "DVDs are more technological than SD cards."
Atilla: "That's... not terribly informative."
Tsukatu: "But it's so obvious!"

Yeah, well this is what the thread has turned into and you eat farts, to nyaaah.

[Clovic]

I would like to insert a book recommendation here. Read A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, and then read another of his books, The Doors of Perception (and Heaven and Hell if you enjoy his writing). He addresses this very topic in thought provoking detail, and as it happens, is also pretty much exactly how I feel so there's my opinion on the thread as well. :)