Dominant Species

Tigeree · 2009-07-10 17:45:26

I have come to a conclusion about the dominant species of this planet... Mice.

bobbym · 2009-07-10 17:57:01

Hi Ricky;

Ricky wrote:

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

OIl, coal and fission reactors threaten the environment. Because we are merely part of that environment and not it's master, they threaten our existence as well. A really sensible race would want to survive. They wouldn't foster a philosophy of domination but rather one of cooperation with the environment. We may not survive but the insects will definitely survive.

Ricky wrote:

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).

The people who build those things think of little else but cost.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-10 17:57:31)

Tigeree · 2009-07-10 18:01:42

You guys arguing your opinions, again? Why does this happen in every opinionated topic! Please PM your opinions or something, everyone else thinks they're boring! Bobby, remember our discussion last time this happened?

bobbym · 2009-07-10 18:07:11

Hi Tigeree;

Boring, possibly, but this is a forum. Yes, I certainly do remember but I didn't promise not to.

He is a moderator, he knows what is OK to post and what is not. Ricky posted first #14. I am just responding to an interesting topic. Did you see post #15

Tigeree wrote:

"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!!

I did see those. "The day after tomorrow" is a distinct possibility.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-10 18:27:42)

Tigeree · 2009-07-10 19:17:54

bobbym wrote:

He is a moderator, he knows what is OK to post and what is not. Ricky posted first #14. I am just responding to an interesting topic.

I know that.

bobbym wrote:

I did see those. "The day after tomorrow" is a distinct possibility.

Yea, that's why I mentioned it.

BTW, I wrote post #15.

Last edited by Tigeree (2009-07-10 19:24:03)

jimmyR · 2009-07-10 20:56:00

Hi bobbym, ricky, and tigeree

Quite a thread y'all got going. I laugh at the thought of the words
"human" and "dominant" used in the same sentence. Folks can't
dominate their own waistlines or hairlines let alone all the bugs
in the world (or the bugs in computer software). You know Ricky,
that burning down the rain forests won't kill all the bugs, they live
quite happily in cities.

Friendly suggestion, think about how to save the world not destroy it.

Ricky · 2009-07-11 05:32:18

You know Ricky,
that burning down the rain forests won't kill all the bugs, they live
quite happily in cities.

When I want to burn down the earth, why do people continue to think that cities will be around? Frustrating... anyways, we have another thread now for that question.

Friendly suggestion, think about how to save the world not destroy it.

That is nowhere near as fun.

Why does this happen in every opinionated topic! Please PM your opinions or something, everyone else thinks they're boring!

No one is forcing you to read this topic Tigeree... or at least I hope.

OIl, coal and fission reactors threaten the environment. Because we are merely part of that environment and not it's master, they threaten our existence as well. A really sensible race would want to survive. They wouldn't foster a philosophy of domination but rather one of cooperation with the environment. We may not survive but the insects will definitely survive.

You seem to be letting emotion get the best of you. Remember, that domination would be a bad thing is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not we have dominated the planet.

But back to the main point... I believe we have changed the earth to the way we wanted it. Nice beaches were eroding so the corps of engineers changed the way waves flowed to prevent this (which was probably a bad idea). We needed a way to move our army around the country so we built a vast interstate system. It was a bit too cold in here so we emitted vast amounts of CO2 to heat the place up.

Ricky · 2009-07-11 05:34:14

This is something I meant to bring up before, but with so many faces to this question I completely forgot. Dominant does not mean, "dominates," as has been suggested thus far in this thread. Dominant refers (in this case) to the species that has the most control. If you are going to argue that humans are not dominant, then I think you must suggest a species which is more dominant, which is in more control than humans.

bobbym · 2009-07-11 09:37:10

Hi Ricky;

Ricky wrote:

When I want to burn down the earth, why do people continue to think that cities will be around?

Insects and other forms of life will flourish in the rubble of our burnt cities. They have survived numerous ice ages and several mass extinctions.

Ricky wrote:

You seem to be letting emotion get the best of you.

Emotions, hardly. Had them removed in 83.

Ricky wrote:

No one is forcing you to read this topic Tigeree... or at least I hope.

Now that is emotional, anyway I think she meant me.

Ricky wrote:

Remember, that domination would be a bad thing is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not we have dominated the planet.

Thats true. I am just stating that since you are the last human to be holding on to this opinion at least vocally, that It is not the correct way to view things (in my opinion of course). Since we live here lets forget domination and try cooperation with nature. Lets abdicate our title.

Ricky wrote:

If you are going to argue that humans are not dominant, then I think you must suggest a species which is more dominant, which is in more control than humans.

Well one way to define dominance is in robustness and longevity. Insects win hands down here. So do plants, sharks, rats, and all microorganisms. To these creatures we are just something to eat.

Ricky · 2009-07-11 11:18:22

This is a reply to this post

Ricky wrote:
bobby wrote:
They were here hundreds of millions of years before we showed up.
Irrelevant.
I couldn't disagree more. It is probabbly the best test of dominance.

Please explain what "living a long time" has to do with dominance, i.e. control of the planet.

Ricky · 2009-07-11 11:26:21

I am just stating that since you are the last human to be holding on to this opinion at least vocally

Exactly what position do you think it is I'm taking? Surely not that humans should try to dominate the planet as much as possible.

Well one way to define dominance is in robustness and longevity.

No, it's not. That's a way to define "survivability". The two concepts are entirely different.

bobbym · 2009-07-11 12:00:59

Hi Rick;

Ricky wrote:

Please explain what "living a long time" has to do with dominance, i.e. control of the planet.

How can you be dominate if you aren't around?

Ricky wrote:

No, it's not. That's a way to define "survivability". The two concepts are entirely different.

Survivability is the heart of dominance. That which is fleeting is fragile, it is weak, it is not dominant. 70 years we didn't even have nuclear weapons so this mythical dominace is a mere 60 years old.

Ricky wrote:

Exactly what position do you think it is I'm taking? Surely not that humans should try to dominate the planet as much as possible.

I truly cannot say. You ponder blowing up the planet. You say you have spent a lot of time considering how to do this. You have suggested burning it or bringing the moon closer. If your concept of dominace is Johnny can beat Joe up, so therefore Johnny is dominant. Then again this statement here

bobbym wrote:

Well one way to define dominance is in robustness and longevity. Insects win hands down here. So do plants, sharks, rats, and all microorganisms. To these creatures we are just something to eat.

is exactly your concept of control. Unfortunately we are not the top of the food chain. Disease can be viewed as a predatory attack of viruses, protozoans, bacteria, rickettsiae and prions on the prey, man.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-11 12:04:27)

Tigeree · 2009-07-11 20:15:03

Ricky wrote:

Friendly suggestion, think about how to save the world not destroy it.
That is nowhere near as fun.

Thank you for seeing my point, Ricky.

Ricky wrote:

No one is forcing you to read this topic Tigeree... or at least I hope.

No problem Ricky, just gives me something to complain about.

Last edited by Tigeree (2009-07-11 20:15:44)

Ricky · 2009-07-12 06:35:06

How can you be dominate if you aren't around?

You seem to be under the impression that to be dominant, you must be dominant for all of time. Of course this is false, the dominant species changes from time to time. What we're asking is what is the dominant species now. And we are around now, so whether or not we'll be here in the distant future has nothing to do with the question.

Survivability is the heart of dominance. That which is fleeting is fragile, it is weak, it is not dominant. 70 years we didn't even have nuclear weapons so this mythical dominace is a mere 60 years old.

Ugh, I've repeatedly said that whether or not we can kill a species of our choice has nothing to do with dominance. You have not contested this, so I must assume you agree with it. Yet you continue bringing up nuclear weapons.

As for survivability, yes it is hard to imagine a dominant species that was poor at surviving. But you're saying survivability implies dominance when really, it's dominance implies survivability.

You ponder blowing up the planet. You say you have spent a lot of time considering how to do this. You have suggested burning it or bringing the moon closer.

...for fun... It's a thought game, nothing more.

Then again this statement here... is exactly your concept of control.

No, it isn't. Control is to be able to change your environment (including the creatures that live in it) to your liking. Again, absolutely control is not needed, and is indeed ridiculous. Control does not mean you can do anything that you want, only the things that you need.

Unfortunately we are not the top of the food chain. Disease can be viewed as a predatory attack of viruses, protozoans, bacteria, rickettsiae and prions on the prey, man.

I would like some statistics to back this up, but I feel fairly confident that in developed nations, there are vastly more deaths due to nonnatural causes (guns, drowning, cars) and cancer and heart disease, than due to viruses and bacterial.

Ignoring cancer and heart disease, we kill ourselves more than viruses and bacteria do.

Edit: A prion is not alive.

bobbym · 2009-07-12 08:56:43

Ricky wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that to be dominant, you must be dominant for all of time. Of course this is false, the dominant species changes from time to time. What we're asking is what is the dominant species now. And we are around now, so whether or not we'll be here in the distant future has nothing to do with the question.

No, what I am saying is any attempt to enforce your definition of dominance would lead to our own self destruction. While leaving some other life forms dominant.

Ricky wrote:

Ugh, I've repeatedly said that whether or not we can kill a species of our choice has nothing to do with dominance.

You have repeatedly said that is your proof of dominance, the ability to wipe out whomever we choose.

Ricky wrote:

As for survivability, yes it is hard to imagine a dominant species that was poor at surviving.

We have only been around a short period of time and may only have a short period left. Other species have survived much longer than man. Their dominance has allowed them to survive much longer than man.

Ricky wrote:

Control is to be able to change your environment (including the creatures that live in it) to your liking.
Ricky wrote:
Ugh, I've repeatedly said that whether or not we can kill a species of our choice has nothing to do with dominance.

Here you go again,
first you say you can't kill any species you want and then you imply you can.

Ricky wrote:

I would like some statistics to back this up, but I feel fairly confident that in developed nations, there are vastly more deaths due to nonnatural causes (guns, drowning, cars) and cancer and heart disease, than due to viruses and bacterial.

I don't share your confidence.

Ricky wrote:

Edit: A prion is not alive.

By the current definition of life.

Ricky · 2009-07-12 09:37:19

Ugh, I've repeatedly said that whether or not we can kill a species of our choice has nothing to do with dominance.
You have repeatedly said that is your proof of dominance, the ability to wipe out whomever we choose.

This is starting to get rather aggravating, bobby. Three times before I have stated that this is not what I thought, and yet you continually say it is. I even said that precise statement in what you quoted! Do you think I am lying to you? Once and for all:

I, Ricky, do not believe that whether or not one species can choose to wipe out any species that it wishes is a test for dominance.

I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. Now please give me some signal that you understand. I try my best to avoid talking to brick walls, but this is the feeling that I'm starting to get from you.

If you would like to argue whether or not this is a test for dominance, that seems like a worthy debate. However, do not continually say that I think it is.

bobbym · 2009-07-12 10:19:24

Ricky wrote:

But we have the power to kill off virtually any species on this plant, viruses included.

Ricky wrote:

I stand by the point that we can wipe out virtually any species we wanted to,

Ricky wrote:

But we can kill insects simply by burning all vegetation.

These are your statements. It is the feasibilty of achieving any of them that is the argument.

Ricky wrote:

I, Ricky, do not believe that whether or not one species can choose to wipe out any species that it wishes is a test for dominance.

The word choose is the key. This is what you don't uinderstand. We have no choice, we cannot wipe out whatever species we choose. Some are beyond our control. I am not arguing against your opinion of dominance, just your lack of proof of it. This control, however you define it, is just an opinion, unique to you. Yet you state it as an absolute. I have not been a brick wall just a defender of a position antagonistic to your own.

We cannot argue this point because unless I put a gun to your head you are not going to agree. Shows you how little control we have even over each other.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-12 10:21:37)

Ricky · 2009-07-12 10:34:13

This control, however you define it, is just an opinion, unique to you. Yet you state it as an absolute.

No, I just state it. You interpret it as an absolute. I'm sorry bobby, but I'm not going to put "I believe" or "I think" or "it's my opinion that" in front of everything I say. That would be ridiculous (in my opinion).

I have not been a brick wall just a defender of a position antagonistic to your own.

Yes you have been! I have repeatedly said that I think control is not defined by "being able to kill any species you want to", and you continually say that I do! I am telling you what I think, you can take my word on that.

Until we get this resolved, I refuse to discuss anything further with you. Without proper communication, discussion is pointless, and our communication seems to have broken down.

Once again, I repeat that I do not think a valid test of dominance is being able to kill any species you want to. I again ask you, please show me you understand that this is what my position is.

bobbym · 2009-07-12 11:30:16

Ricky wrote:

Once again, I repeat that I do not think a valid test of dominance is being able to kill any species you want to. I again ask you, please show me you understand that this is what my position is.

I understand the above statement completely.

You have not read my previous post. Your position on the 3 top quotes you wrote remains unchanged. I cannot sway you. I just contend that you have no valid test of dominance.

You have carefully removed the word choose from the above quote. That is the the only point of contention. When you state that it is your opinion that we are dominate the thread becomes trivial.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-07-12 11:51:14)

Ricky · 2009-07-13 07:31:57

Since you seem to have no objection to my statement that dominance has nothing to do with being able to kill any species (if you do, please let me know), then let us move on from this, and get back to talking about dominance.

As I posted a little while back, dominant means the most in the control. So there is always at least one (though possibly multiple) dominant species. If you (you, meaning everyone reading this) think that humans are not the dominant species, then I would like to hear suggestions as to which species are more dominant, and your reasons why.

Math Is Fun Forum

#26 2009-07-10 17:45:26

Re: Dominant Species

#27 2009-07-10 17:57:01

Re: Dominant Species

#28 2009-07-10 18:01:42

Re: Dominant Species

#29 2009-07-10 18:07:11

Re: Dominant Species

#30 2009-07-10 19:17:54

Re: Dominant Species

#31 2009-07-10 20:56:00

Re: Dominant Species

#32 2009-07-11 05:32:18

Re: Dominant Species

#33 2009-07-11 05:34:14

Re: Dominant Species

#34 2009-07-11 09:37:10

Re: Dominant Species

#35 2009-07-11 11:18:22

Re: Dominant Species

#36 2009-07-11 11:26:21

Re: Dominant Species

#37 2009-07-11 12:00:59

Re: Dominant Species

#38 2009-07-11 20:15:03

Re: Dominant Species

#39 2009-07-12 06:35:06

Re: Dominant Species

#40 2009-07-12 08:56:43

Re: Dominant Species

#41 2009-07-12 09:37:19

Re: Dominant Species

#42 2009-07-12 10:19:24

Re: Dominant Species

#43 2009-07-12 10:34:13

Re: Dominant Species

#44 2009-07-12 11:30:16

Re: Dominant Species

#45 2009-07-13 07:31:57

Re: Dominant Species

Board footer