Dominant Species

bossk171 · 2009-07-04 05:34:08

In my ethics class the other day my professor offered up the statement "it's unquestionable that humans are the dominant species." I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that humanity is the dominant species, by I find the idea that it's unquestionable absurd.

We argued back and forth (I used certain viruses as my dominant species) then I just gave up after a while.

Usually I don't take what English teachers say too seriously (if they wanted to be taken seriously, they'd teach math), but this has been really bothering me. So I offer to the masses:

1. What species do you consider dominant?
2. How do you define dominance?

Last edited by bossk171 (2009-07-04 05:35:23)

bobbym · 2009-07-04 07:48:10

Hi bossk171;

bossk171 wrote:

Usually I don't take what English teachers say too seriously (if they wanted to be taken seriously, they'd teach math), but this has been really bothering me. So I offer to the masses:

This too is a statement worth debating.

In my ethics class the other day my professor offered up the statement "it's unquestionable that humans are the dominant species." I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that humanity is the dominant species, by I find the idea that it's unquestionable absurd.

Unquestionable? Where have we established dominance? Over the squirrels, maybe? Dominance is an illusion. It is because humanity believes it's own hype we may soon be the extinct dominant species.

integer · 2009-07-04 09:59:02

bossk171 wrote:

...
2. How do you define dominance?

paper, rock, scissors
Which is dominant?

MathsIsFun · 2009-07-04 10:58:31

I offer this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_ne … 127519.stm

bossk171 · 2009-07-05 05:25:22

bobbym wrote:

bossk171 wrote:
Usually I don't take what English teachers say too seriously (if they wanted to be taken seriously, they'd teach math), but this has been really bothering me. So I offer to the masses:
This too is a statement worth debating.

This is more of a punch line than a belief. Some of my best teachers were English teachers (and I've had some really terrible ones too...).

integer: Rock, Paper, Scissors, that's brilliant. I wish I'd thought of that in class.

Math Is Fun: That BBC story is amazing (and a little terrifying), thanks.

Tigeree · 2009-07-05 15:12:44

What if we're not dominant in the future? Was the human race always dominant?

The rock, paper, scissors theory: Most peoples first reaction is scissors, so my first choice is usually rock. Second round: Then my opponent sees the reaction and goes rock, unless they've played me enough times to know that I would naturally go paper, if so they would go scissors, if they reaction is reversed then I would go scissors just in case and risk the majority of losing. Thats how I see the game anyway.
Btw, integer, that was pretty brilliant.

bobbym · 2009-07-06 08:20:16

Hi everyone;

bossk171 wrote:

. How do you define dominance?

Bossk171, has asked a question.

soroban · 2009-07-06 11:13:10

I have this theory . . .

Most lifeforms on this planet are six-legged.

There is a substantially smaller group of lifeforms with four legs
. . which are more highly developed.

There are only a few billion two-legged lifeforms which are remarkably advanced,
. . both intellectually and technologically.

Conclusion: The dominant species is probably a dozen snakes.]
.

Tigeree · 2009-07-06 14:29:23

Thats quite a good theory, soroban. But the two-legged life forms, you say are remarkably advanced what makes them not the dominant species?
Dominance, is a thing that I know not a lot about, being obsessed with world domination when I was younger I eventually got myself thinking, how was I eventually going to pull it off? My most efficient plans were going into politics, gaining the peoples trust and then enslaving them all. Or simply exterminate the queen. But the queen doesn't enforce much anyway.
Anyway, the most probable dominant species is probably not a species at all but machines. Especially for the future.

But I was at my friends house the other day, she has two chickens. One of the chickens kept escaping even when I was watching her. (And she knew I was watching her, she looked right at me) Then two Rosellas came (Rosellas always travel in pairs, but still) both chickens ran over to them, not attacking them, or anything but innocently pecking the ground at their feet. It was then that I knew they were up to something. If you've ever seen chickens & Rosellas secretly discussing things you'll know what I mean. Then the biggest chicken escaped again!
This story leads me to believe that birds maybe the dominant creatures of our planet.

bobbym · 2009-07-06 18:04:10

Hi Tigeree;

Tigeree wrote:

My most efficient plans were going into politics, gaining the peoples trust and then enslaving them all.

I think that idea has already been used.

Tigeree wrote:

This story leads me to believe that birds maybe the dominant creatures of our planet.

In the movie "The Birds," after the birds finished munching on Rod Taylor's hand they asserted their domination over the world.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-06 18:08:58)

Tigeree · 2009-07-06 18:45:07

I thought of things that have already been thought of. I think I've heard the story "The Birds". I haven't read it though, actually I think I have that somewhere around here...
About my young and crazy idea... Who used that?

bobbym · 2009-07-06 19:37:56

Hi Tigeree;

It's and old movie and a book. That idea was used by lots of former leaders but they didn't quite enslave everybody.

Tigeree · 2009-07-06 19:45:09

Aha! See that's what I thought I don't know any leaders who enslaved everybody! Huh! Yeah, they didn't think of that! Did they!

Last edited by Tigeree (2009-07-06 19:45:33)

Ricky · 2009-07-09 18:21:49

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that humanity is the dominant species, by I find the idea that it's unquestionable absurd.

The idea that a teacher teaches by authority is sickening. Most likely your teacher meant "obvious".

We argued back and forth (I used certain viruses as my dominant species) then I just gave up after a while.

Given that viruses aren't considered as life (more like machines), it's probably a bad choice. But we have the power to kill off virtually any species on this plant, viruses included. Indeed, we have the ability to destroy the entire planet (several thousand times over) if we really wanted to. Now just because we would never do that doesn't mean we can't.

Humans also move about as much of the earth every year as nature itself (volcanoes, storms, hurricanes, mud slides, glaciers, etc) does. No other life form even comes close to that.

But the biggest difference between humans and everything else lies in evolution itself. The vast majority of life adapts to it's environment. We adapt our environment to us.

Tigeree · 2009-07-09 20:15:25

"If we really wanted to." We're already doing it! What about all those endangered species, like the Orangutans and various species of Rhino. Have you people seen 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'?, 'The Day After Tomorrow'? They're very realistic!!

bobbym · 2009-07-09 21:33:35

Ricky wrote:

But we have the power to kill off virtually any species on this plant, viruses included. Indeed, we have the ability to destroy the entire planet (several thousand times over) if we really wanted to.

You seem to be equating the power to destroy with domination. Can we really wipe out any species we choose? Could we wipe out the insect population? The bacterial population?

Ricky wrote:

Now just because we would never do that doesn't mean we can't.

The jury is still out on this one.

Ricky wrote:

Humans also move about as much of the earth every year as nature itself (volcanoes, storms, hurricanes, mud slides, glaciers, etc) does. No other life form even comes close to that.

Mobility implies what? Many animal species migrate thousands of miles.

Ricky wrote:

But the biggest difference between humans and everything else lies in evolution itself. The vast majority of life adapts to it's environment. We adapt our environment to us.

We have covered the surface of our world in concrete and asphalt. Putrefied the air and water. Is this adapting the environment to us, or to a privileged few.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-09 21:40:24)

Ricky · 2009-07-10 03:33:14

You seem to be equating the power to destroy with domination. Can we really wipe out any species we choose? Could we wipe out the insect population? The bacterial population?

If we destroy the entire earth, these go along with it.

Mobility implies what? Many animal species migrate thousands of miles.

It's not that we're mobile. It's that we move earth. We move earth just about as much as nature does. Again, no other species even comes remotely close, or even remotely close to that.

We have covered the surface of our world in concrete and asphalt. Putrefied the air and water. Is this adapting the environment to us, or to a privileged few.

That's a whole lot of rhetoric, and for what I'm not entirely sure. You don't seem to be arguing against my point, only saying that "humans are bad", something entirely not involved with this discussion.

bossk171 · 2009-07-10 08:08:49

Ricky: I was looking forward to you getting involved in this discussion. Can you share definition of dominance?

bobbym · 2009-07-10 09:37:24

Hi Ricky;

And here we go again.

Ricky wrote:

If we destroy the entire earth, these go along with it.

How do we destroy the whole earth. Could we make it disappear? Most we could do is change the surface with nuclear weapons. We would disappear the earth would remain and so would the insect population.

Ricky wrote:

It's not that we're mobile. It's that we move earth. We move earth just about as much as nature does. Again, no other species even comes remotely close, or even remotely close to that.

Granted, we move earth. Does this imply dominance. We move more earth than a gopher so we are dominant? Earthquakes are thousands of times more powerful than all of mans atomic weapons combined. A single large object hurtling through space on a collision course with this planet means the end of man and his creations.

Ricky wrote:

That's a whole lot of rhetoric, and for what I'm not entirely sure.

Rhetoric, if memory serves means clever but specious or fallacious reasoning. Is that what I am doing or is the idea of dominance fallacious.

Ricky wrote:

You don't seem to be arguing against my point, only saying that "humans are bad", something entirely not involved with this discussion.

Not humans but the concept of domination.

Ricky wrote:

We adapt our environment to us.

Forgive me but you sound like the borg. Who is us?

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-10 10:29:22)

Ricky · 2009-07-10 10:32:51

bossk171 wrote:

Ricky: I was looking forward to you getting involved in this discussion. Can you share definition of dominance?

Control. Remember control does not mean you need to have the ability to do everything. For example, we may control a prisoner, but this does not imply we can make him commit suicide.

If you had to pick one species that was in control of the earth, what would it be?

bobbym:

How do we destroy the whole earth. Could we make it disappear? Most we could do is change the surface with nuclear weapons. We would disappear the earth would remain and so would the insect population.

I do not want to go down the road of debating what effect detonating 24,000 nukes (and remember, we could create millions more) will have on the earth. Too many unknowns, and far too speculative.

I stand by the point that we can wipe out virtually any species we wanted to, but I realize now that this is not important to the issue of dominance. It does not matter whether or not we can wipe out species. Even if we couldn't, it does not affect any claims against dominance.

Granted, we move earth. Does this imply dominance. We move more earth than a gopher so we are dominant?

The point I was making is the power that humans have. As you are comparing this to a gopher, you seem to have missed the point. Being able to change the earth as much as nature does is a very powerful thing, and it demonstrates the control we have over this earth. No species, and indeed the sum of all other species, even comes close.

Remember earthquakes are thousands of times more powerful than our entire nuclear math. A single large object hurtling through space on a collision course with this planet means the end of man and his creations.

This has absolutely nothing to do with dominance. Dominance does not mean "can not be wiped out or killed off".

Rhetoric, if memory serves means clever but specious or fallacious reasoning. Is that what I am doing or is the idea of dominance fallacious.

Rhetoric refers to the use of colorful language in assisting one's argument. Saying things like "we have covered the world in asphalt" and "putrefied air and water" are vast over exaggerations, to the point where you are attempting to use language to sway your audience. "We build too many roads" and "humans produce pollution in unreasonable quantities" would have made your argument become trivial. Still not entirely sure what that argument is though...

You don't seem to be arguing against my point, only saying that "humans are bad", something entirely not involved with this discussion.
Not humans but the concept of domination.

Please explain how a concept can be bad. Perhaps you meant that humans achieving dominance is a bad thing?

Forgive me but you sound like the borg. Who is us?

Humans. And you do it everyday that you turn on a light or sit in air conditioning.

bobbym · 2009-07-10 11:03:19

Ricky wrote:

If you had to pick one species that was in control of the earth, what would it be?

No species is dominant. A species is just a single biological experiment of nature. All species eventually become extinct.

Ricky wrote:

The point I was making is the power that humans have. As you are comparing this to a gopher, you seem to have missed the point.

No, it is just a question of magnitude. Other species change the earth, too.

Ricky wrote:

I do not want to go down the road of debating what effect detonating 24,000 nukes (and remember, we could create millions more) will have on the earth. Too many unknowns, and far too speculative.

True, but I reject the idea that we could create millions more. The asteroid that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs was equal to millions of hydrogen bombs. It only whacked two thirds of the lifeforms out.

Ricky wrote:

I stand by the point that we can wipe out virtually any species we wanted to, but I realize now that this is not important to the issue of dominance. It does not matter whether or not we can wipe out species. Even if we couldn't, it does not affect any claims against dominance.

We cannot wipe out any lifeform we wanted to. I have just stated insects and lower forms have been here before man and will outlast him. We don't have control.

Ricky wrote:

Rhetoric refers to the use of colorful language in assisting one's argument. Saying things like "we have covered the world in asphalt" and "putrefied air and water" are vast over exaggerations, to the point where you are attempting to use language to sway your audience. "We build too many roads" and "humans produce pollution in unreasonable quantities" would have made your argument become trivial. Still not entirely sure what that argument is though...

How dominant are you if you wipe yourself out.

Ricky wrote:

Please explain how a concept can be bad. Perhaps you meant that humans achieving dominance is a bad thing?

Oh boy! Lots of concepts are bad. Humans acting as if they are dominant and that the place belongs to them is the bad thing. Unfortunately, some humans achieving dominance over other humans has been a bad thing.

Ricky wrote:

Humans. And you do it everyday that you turn on a light or sit in air conditioning.

Air conditioning and lights is an attempt to adapt our surroundings. How we generate the electricity for that is an expression of our attitude of domination.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-10 11:10:44)

mathsyperson · 2009-07-10 11:23:27

Ricky wrote:

bossk171 wrote:
Ricky: I was looking forward to you getting involved in this discussion. Can you share definition of dominance?
Control.

This makes me think of a parasite I read about.
Its favourite host is the cat, but it can survive in other animals too.
The interesting thing is that if a mouse or rat is infected by this parasite, it becomes attracted to cat urine (when normally it would avoid the smell).
The parasite alters the behaviour of its host to make it more likely to get eaten by a cat, while leaving all other brain function alone. All other causes of death, which aren't beneficial to the parasite, are avoided by the rat just as well as if it wasn't infected.

Ricky · 2009-07-10 11:35:32

bobby, control does not mean absolute control. Just because your car will eventually be junked and you will eventually die does not mean you don't have control over your vehicle when you're driving it. Just because you can't make it do a flip doesn't mean you don't have control.

Just because we can not kill off a species doesn't mean we don't have control. Just because we will eventually die off does not mean we don't have control now. Again, you are talking about absolute control. If that's your definition of dominance, then the discussion becomes trivial and unnecessary.

True, but I reject the idea that we could create millions more.

Why?

No, it is just a question of magnitude. Other species change the earth, too.

Yes, but that magnitude is important. Nothing else even comes close to what humans do to change this earth.

Oh boy! Lots of concepts are bad. Humans acting as if they are dominant and that the place belongs to them is the bad thing. Unfortunately, some humans achieving dominance over other humans has been a bad thing.

Humans acting upon a concept can be bad, yes. It sounded before like you were talking about something else, and as you did not say "yes, that's what I meant" to my question, I think this still may be the case...

How we generate the electricity for that is an expression of our attitude of domination.

Huh?

Again, I want to state that the following has no impact on dominance whatsoever. But we can kill insects simply by burning all vegetation. It's being done in the rain forest right now, just imagine if we had everyone trying to do it. With enough time and determination I feel confident we could eliminate the little buggers.

bobbym · 2009-07-10 12:13:37

Ricky wrote:

Again, I want to state that the following has no impact on dominance whatsoever. But we can kill insects simply by burning all vegetation. It's being done in the rain forest right now, just imagine if we had everyone trying to do it. With enough time and determination I feel confident we could eliminate the little buggers.

Insects live everywhere on the planet, right along side man.

Ricky wrote:

Yes, but that magnitude is important. Nothing else even comes close to what humans do to change this earth.

True, thats not control, thats ignorance.

Ricky wrote:

Huh?

Oil, coal, nuclear fission.

Ricky wrote:

Why?

Cost and storage, of course. In addition just so much fissionable material is available.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-10 12:23:51)

Ricky · 2009-07-10 15:12:50

Insects live everywhere on the planet, right along side man.

I never said we would survive.

True, thats not control, thats ignorance.

Huh?

Oil, coal, nuclear fission.

Is an expression of our attitude of domination? Still not making much sense, at least over here.

Cost and storage, of course. In addition just so much fissionable material is available.

Who cares about cost? We're going to end the world! And storage is entirely feasible. I believe there is enough material, but that would require some researching (which I don't particularly want to do over such a silly hypothetical).

Math Is Fun Forum

#1 2009-07-04 05:34:08

Dominant Species

#2 2009-07-04 07:48:10

Re: Dominant Species

#3 2009-07-04 09:59:02

Re: Dominant Species

#4 2009-07-04 10:58:31

Re: Dominant Species

#5 2009-07-05 05:25:22

Re: Dominant Species

#6 2009-07-05 15:12:44

Re: Dominant Species

#7 2009-07-06 08:20:16

Re: Dominant Species

#8 2009-07-06 11:13:10

Re: Dominant Species

#9 2009-07-06 14:29:23

Re: Dominant Species

#10 2009-07-06 18:04:10

Re: Dominant Species

#11 2009-07-06 18:45:07

Re: Dominant Species

#12 2009-07-06 19:37:56

Re: Dominant Species

#13 2009-07-06 19:45:09

Re: Dominant Species

#14 2009-07-09 18:21:49

Re: Dominant Species

#15 2009-07-09 20:15:25

Re: Dominant Species

#16 2009-07-09 21:33:35

Re: Dominant Species

#17 2009-07-10 03:33:14

Re: Dominant Species

#18 2009-07-10 08:08:49

Re: Dominant Species

#19 2009-07-10 09:37:24

Re: Dominant Species

#20 2009-07-10 10:32:51

Re: Dominant Species

#21 2009-07-10 11:03:19

Re: Dominant Species

#22 2009-07-10 11:23:27

Re: Dominant Species

#23 2009-07-10 11:35:32

Re: Dominant Species

#24 2009-07-10 12:13:37

Re: Dominant Species

#25 2009-07-10 15:12:50

Re: Dominant Species

Board footer