ksagnostic

Geo, it's not a question of "superiority", it is a question of point of view. Simply put, humans are more important to other humans.

vixstile

(i think i'm "V")
There is no objective criteria for determining 'superiority'. I have no problem the statement "humans are superior", as long as it is realized that there is no equation for determining such a thing as superiority. I certainly view humans as superior, or better, but I recognize that this is simply a value judgment.

Doubting Didymus

So what? Even if the 'purpose' of life is to spread the genome, you still have to define the superiority as 'the ability of a thing to fulfill the purpose of the thing'.

Using these definitions, 'Cletus the yokel' from The Simpsons is easily superior to all of the other characters, as he has produced the most children and has spread his genome much wider.

If I build a toaster for the purpose of eating toast, but the thing accidentally becomes an intelligent quantum computer network capable of answering all of lifes problems anywhere in the universe, but that can't make a piece of fucking toast to save itself, then the shitty plastic K-Mart brand toaster I get to replace it counts as 'superior', because it fulfills its purpose much much better.

Holy complete and utter non sequiteur, batman!

Doubting Didymus

I love it!

Who saw the Halloween Simpsons recently? It seems we have found the inspiration.

Jeremy Pallant

Heh. We should be so lucky.

Seriously, I think it would be good for humanity to realize that we aren't the only sentient species in the universe.

Stephen T-B

There was a time when I would have agreed with Kharakov’s assertion that “We... have the greatest chance of spreading life from our home planet to another.”
I now wonder if that is the case; rather shockingly - from that point of view - some scientific opinion seems to be moving towards an acceptance of the idea that life is spread through the universe by exotic micro-organisms - or sub micro-organisms (I’ve never quite grasped what these things are, beyond the fact that they are very small and practically indestructible.)
I like the irony implicit here: human beings, extremely complex life-forms which have specialised in developing their brains so that they have become, apparently, the smartest things on the planet, are working towards a space-travelling capability which has been demonstrated for several billion years by smaller-than-microscopic organisms of great simplicity and zero brain power.
And isn’t it ironic that this “superior” species of ours which can create seas, drain lakes, flatten mountains, destroy forests and wipe out thousands of other species, is nevertheless vulnerable to attack by the tiniest, least intelligent life forms on the planet - bacteria and viruses? And the creatures we’d really like to be rid of, like ants, termites, mosquitoes and other creep-crawlies which wouldn’t know a differential equation from a tree stump, carry on for the most part as though we didn’t even exist.
It’s tempting to teach them a proper respect by making them extinct, but if we ever managed to do that we might find out - and by then it’d be too late - that they help sustain the framework on which our own lives depend.
We are but part of a system, and only significant to the extent that we are developing the capability of destroying the elements of it which keep us alive.

Alonzo Fyfe

"Superiority" and similar concepts are value-laden terms. So, this causes me to wonder what science has to say about the "superiority" (higher value) of one species over another.

Jamie_L

Personally, I'm don't particularly care much about whether or not we are objectively superior to any other species.

As a human, I'm more interested in advancing human desires and goals than in advancing the condition of other species. If the two don't conflict, fine, whatever. When they do, humans first, I say.

The caveat, as I mentioned earlier, is that we have to be careful to watch out for situations where short term conflicts resolved in favor of humans can lead to long-term harm to humans. Things like destroying rain-forests, damaging the ecosystem beyond repair, and destroying wild spaces that are beneficial for research and recreation.

Jamie

Writer@Large

If I may ...

<HUGO WEAVING>

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.

"There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. "

</HUGO WEAVING>

I'm not entirely sure how this is a point in our favor.

--W@L

Jamie_L

Just to be nit-picky... No animal develops an instinctive balance with the environment. They are forced into a balance by all the competing forces. Consider the "balance" achieved when dingoes and cats were released in Australia.

Jamie