Technology and cooperative defense are part of our biological nature. To criticize us for group dependency is to criticize ants, or termites, or Volvox.

I agree that the typical feeling of "dominion" people have is idiotic, but let’s see a more legitimate treatment. You were getting there in your last statement.

I totally disagree about human inferiority. Rather, we are the ‘most superior’ mammal ever to have evolved. Humans are the only mammal to disperse itself to all continents. The only other ones (like rats) required human assistance to achieve the same feat. Humans live in a wider range of habitats than any other species – from Arctic ice to desert, to tropical rain forest.

We do this by means of technology. However, this is not a weakness. It is a strength. No other organism can do what we can, since we are the only ones able to use more advanced technology.

Humans learn. Our society changes. For example : the percentage of our population to die by human on human violence has been dropping steadily.

Murder rates drop dramatically. Medieval England had a murder rate of 100 homicides per year, per 100,000 people. Today it is down to just 1.

Pollution is getting less as we learn. Europe and the USA had terrible air and water pollution 100 years ago. Today we breath much cleaner air and our rivers are much less polluted. Lifespan has doubled over the same time.

No, humans are not inferior. Quite the opposite.

Zachariah

We never could survive without it. Technology includes such things as banging two rocks together to break open edible nuts. Our first human ancestors 200,000 years ago already had simple technology, and could not survive without it. To be human is to use technology, however primitive or advanced.

There is evidence to indicate that even Homo habilis was using substantial simple technology, several million years before Homo sapiens even came into existence. You cannot separate humanity from technology. It is part of what we are.

To suggest it is a weakness because we could not live without it is like suggesting that the fangs and teeth of a lion are a weakness, since it cannot live without them. Humans have evolved as technology making and using animals. It is our main adaptation for survival.

Woud like to start from the beginning. You state that human are inferior. Define inferiority.
While doing you are asked to keep in mind that the products of our ingenuity and culture as much part of our evolutive make-up than our genes.

Yes it is a loaded question. But it is fair game, considering that your opening statement is as loaded as mine.

if humanity was so pathetic, we wouldn’t be here.

Zachariah

Humanity does not have long claws, or massive limb tearing arms. So what?
We have a brain. We have an unspecialised body with excellent vision, and arms that can do almost anything, driven by that magnificent brain. Humans are superior to any other mammal. Given time, we will not only be the only mammal to self distribute to all continents. We will also be the only mammal to colonise planets around other stars. And we will bring our fellow Earth dwellers to live with us. Hopefully without the mosquitoes, flies and rats this time!

Humanity will create new Earths around other stars, and the giant redwood will climb into the sky under an alien sun.

Zachariah

The great thing about a big brain is the capacity for learning. Humanity, like other species, expands into new territories and causes environmental damage, including the extinction of other species. However, unlike other species, we can learn.

Here in New Zealand, we are generating more and more reserves, sanctuaries, sheltered areas, and so on, to conserve nature and endangered species. Only humanity of all the animals on Earth, has ever even made such an attempt. Modern man is doing far more of this than our more primitive (by your terms, superior) ancestors. In NZ, the first people here, the stone age polynesian Maori, wiped out 36 species of native birds (that we know of) through overhunting, and through introducing rats. Europeans killed off a further 15 species, but are now conserving like crazy.

We learn, and that is a mark of superiority.

I disagree that we do nothing to make up for environmental mistakes. Here in New Zealand, we have done more harm to more species in a very short time than most places. Today, though, we are doing more to repair damage than most places.

For example ; human efforts brought back the black robin from the very edge of extinction.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/nat … ack-robin/

We are currently doing the same for the kakapo.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/nat … ds/kakapo/

We now have many wild life reservations in which rare and endangered species can flourish, like Tiri Island, where the rare takahe is now breeding, among other rare species.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recrea … sanctuary/

Human population is currently 7 billion and is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. After that, projections suggest it will stabilise or fall. So any added impact from increasing population will be small.

You quote 27,000 species per year going extinct. That is supposition. No-one actually knows. The species that go extinct that can be counted is about ten per year. Of course, the true figure is higher, because some species will quietly die off without anyone noticing. But to go from ten per year to 27,000 is, to me, a wild exaggeration. My private guess is 100 per year.

There are probably about 100 million species of eucaryotes in the world today, plus or minus a large error factor. If 100 per year go extinct, that is a rather small percentage of the total. Not that I say 100 is OK. No. And that is why we must strive to reduce or stop extinctions. But that is not an excuse to exaggerate them, either.

zachariah: first, I highly doubt, that any bacteria will extinct due to humans
second, how can be humans poor, if their population is still rising? You obviously want just to argue and you do not even know, what about, but you still will.

actually the poorer a civilization the more offspring the produce, the more kids one have the more chance one will survive to support the parents, the birth rate is lower in more well off areas!

Chill out JackBean, the guy Zacharia want some discussion, so he keep it alive by arguing :p

I agreewith Zenithar66, the poorer a society, the more offspring they produce, but I dont think they have enough vision to see one of their children support them, it just that they were lack of planning and knowledge on contraception for instance, well that what’s happen in my country.

About the main topics, I dont believe that human is inferior…
nor do I believe that human is superior.

It is relatives. When you see human youngster, that takes 1 or 2 year just to stand up straight and walk, while neonatus deer can stand up and walk in just less than a day…yes Sir we are inferior.

But concerning the technology, I think it is a part of human superiority. Because it is the result of our observation, learning, and thinking. And we wont be extinct if our technology disappear, as long as we have fire, water, plant, herbivores 🙂 except for some jetset people that used to drink pasteurized milk everyday. (well i can cope with freshly burnt rabbit and boiled milk)

I consider human being superior because we can think and learn, and create (hey this is the word im trying to type :)). We have one of the longest age as creature (turtle include groups that beat us in this) because we learn how to take care of ourselves, what to eat, what not to eat, we dont just eat scrambled thing in front of us.

At least were not chasing our own butt (since we dont have tail) 😀