Human beings

[Lou Cypher]

How do human beings compare to the rest of the animal kingdom? Better or worse?

 

[YoungGun69]

How do human beings compare to the rest of the animal kingdom? Better or worse?

After Tuesday I say we are the worst animals on the planet.

 

[bluntforcemama]

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

 

[KillerMuffin]

The same.

 

[Vlad]

Human beings are the worst animals on the planet. We have done more overall damage to each other, to other animals, to the environment, and to the world as a whole than could ever been imagined.

I lose more faith in humans every day. The evil events of last Tuesday have really pissed me off.

Vlad

 

[registered "^^"]

I like crash test dummmies. Look at all the information we get from them, and never have to listen to them bitch or feed them............

 

[cymbidia]

~sigh~
Compare in what way?
Evolutionary fitness over the long haul?
Moral aptitude?
Land speed?
Variety of habitats?

What?
What are we comparing?
In what manner are we supposed to compare ourselves to the other members of Kingdom Anamalia?

You gotta give the whole damned question if you want any kinda meaningful answer.

I say we're WAY better than microfauna in all ways, at all times.
Maybe we're not as good as most of the birds.
And if we blow our asses out of the food chain, the insects will take over like we were never here.


Grade: D on this as an essay question. Do a rewrite and resubmit for half credit.

 

[Never]

Oh, cymbidia is handing out grades.

Now, I thought 'evolutionary fitness' is dependent on its environment. A penguin and an ostrich both are 'fit' in that they can survive in their natural environment, right?
So, what's my natural environment? I mean, if you set me in the middle of a grassland I'd die pretty fast, does that mean I'm not 'fit'? Or can I be 'fit' because I can thrive in a modern environment?

Or am I totally wrong?

 

[cymbidia]

"Evolutionary fitness", as coined by Darwin, originally simply referred to the fit between an organism and its environment. However, the term has come to mean the evolutionary success of an organism - and species - relative to competing organisms/species.

Originally posted by Never
Now, I thought 'evolutionary fitness' is dependent on its environment. A penguin and an ostrich both are 'fit' in that they can survive in their natural environment, right?
So, what's my natural environment? I mean, if you set me in the middle of a grassland I'd die pretty fast, does that mean I'm not 'fit'? Or can I be 'fit' because I can thrive in a modern environment?

Or am I totally wrong?

A penguin and an ostrich are both fit for their environments, yes, discounting any changes wrought by global warming, for example, and/or pipeline construction.

Unlike the birds, your natural environment is of little consequence to your (humanity's) evolutionary fitness. We're tool users. We know how to use fire. Unlike all the rest of the animals, we reshape our environment to suit our needs. In a way, humans are outside the Darwinian ideas of "evolutionary fitness" now, since we're not dependent on environment anymore, and therefore, our environment isn't exerting any more selection pressures on our species.

You're "fit" because you can adapt to almost any environment, Never, though it's of vastly more consequence that you can force your environment to adapt to your needs instead.

Such brute force lies in opposition to the gentle but inexorable ways of nature, though, and i still maintain that the insects will take over the joint after we cause the extinction of our brute-force species.



Grade: A. Good, well-reasoned question.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Are we going to talk about how the meek shall inherit the earth again? Face it, I'm prescient.

 

[Never]

I got an A!
Ohhh, it's been too long since I've had that thrill. I'm almost giddy.

Hey cym, want to write a recommendation for me?