In going back to the OP to study it a bit harder and come up with a better response to it than I have been giving, as you suggested, a few things struck me.
I would argue that we ARE the most adaptable. Consider this, a single species Homo sapiens sapiens can be found in more habitats around the world than any other species. Now, I am using the term habitat rather than place in order to specifically exclude bacteria. If I had used the term place, then one could argue that bacteria are found wherever humans are found. By using the term habitat, many bacteria are restricted to very few habitats, as many of them are very specific to the creature they happen to be living in.
Anyways, back to the argument, assuming then, that this idea of us as the most adaptable is a fair measure (remember, you introduced it choosybeggar)then I think humans win out in this one.
Consider: humans can be found living in almost every habitat around the world, from deserts to swamps to jungles to temperate forests to mountains to tundra.
I now challenge someone to name a single SPECIES (bacteria is not a species, nor is a penguin, for example) that lives in as many varied climates and habitats as humans.
In going back to the OP to study it a bit harder and come up with a better response to it than I have been giving, as you suggested, a few things struck me.
I would argue that we ARE the most adaptable. Consider this, a single species Homo sapiens sapiens can be found in more habitats around the world than any other species. Now, I am using the term habitat rather than place in order to specifically exclude bacteria. If I had used the term place, then one could argue that bacteria are found wherever humans are found. By using the term habitat, many bacteria are restricted to very few habitats, as many of them are very specific to the creature they happen to be living in.
Anyways, back to the argument, assuming then, that this idea of us as the most adaptable is a fair measure (remember, you introduced it choosybeggar)then I think humans win out in this one.
Consider: humans can be found living in almost every habitat around the world, from deserts to swamps to jungles to temperate forests to mountains to tundra.
I now challenge someone to name a single SPECIES (bacteria is not a species, nor is a penguin, for example) that lives in as many varied climates and habitats as humans.
Good point, Neuro. re: adaptability. I don’t think there’s any species that can live in as many environments as humans can.
And I would the one thing that separates us from the animals is that some of us can see beyond the normal parameters of reproduction and survival. Most humans can’t (or won’t), but as long as we as a species produce that tiny minority that can see beyond the physical world (whether they be religious or scientific types) to see the underlying patterns of the universe, we’ll have a leg up on our animal compatriots.
Of course being able to kick the living bejesus outta the other species is a pretty good indicator we rock too…
I agree with you about the foresight thing wholeheartedly. But everytime I tried to argue that or something like it, choosybeggar would simply argue that we don’t really know whether or not other animals have foresight for sure. Or even if we did, that this foresight naturally made us better rather than simply unique. Since that was a reasonable objection given the parameters set forth in the OP, I was forced to use one of choosy’s measures provided in the OP.
I have to agree with you about kicking the bejeezus out of other creatures, too. Give me some man-made guns, poisons, armor, biosuits, and whatever else I need, put me in an arena with any other creature and watch me prove who’s superior
The thing that distinguishes our “creativity” from other things that make animal species distinct is that our creativity is an end in itself…it does not apply to instinctual needs based on survival, procreation, and the like.
It is a valuable criteria like any other thing that acts as a distinguishing characteristic.
I agree 100% that man is an animal, don’t get me wrong. I also feel that man is quantifiable. But, I also believe that the things that distinguish us from other animals are in addition to the things we already have which correspond to other animals.
We are “animals plus.” A similar argument applies to comparing multi-cellular organisms to single-celled bacterium, for example. They are cellular creatures +.
This puts us on a higher level than other animals. It clearly makes us naurally superior. The question remains if our superiority is one of a self-annihilating nature, like the parasites which reproduce until the host is destroyed.
But why are the things that are unique to each of the other species not animal +? Aren’t we just monkeys without tales, and a well ordered hierarchical society?
[quote]
*It is a valuable criteria like any other thing that acts as a distinguishing characteristic.[.i]
[quote]
Why is it more valuable than flight (birds, bats, insects, …), or selfless cooperativity, (ants, bees,…) walking on water (only 1 recorded incidence in humans)?
Neurotik, Wabbit, sorry to have dropped out for a while.
Neurotik you said,
There are no examples of single species that I know of living in climates as diverse as those we inhabit. I will grant you that this is a significant accomplishment. The OP, however, wrestles with a different issue. Stated simply, is the degree to which we elevate the status of our species above all others justifiable by a reasoned argument? I think not. Yet I do not deny that we possess some unique characteristics. IMHO, these qualities are insufficient justification for our profound speciesism.
In the OP I said,
**
Hopefully that underscores the point I make above.
The discussion to this point has hovered around the issue of what qualities we possess that confer some unique status onto us. While I maintain that we cannot assign an objective value to the products of human creation for its own sake (sure we value human creative expression, we’re human, right?), I do not deny the value these things hold for our species. And I do not deny that we lack any objective criterion indicating superiority. There are many things we do well. And many traits we possess making us unique. Many, many, many. We could create a laundry list of traits and abilities unique to mankind. Start with abjuration and end with zymurgy. While we’re at it, create such a list for every animal you can think of. Things that aardvarks do great, things that ants do great, things that asps do great, we could work our way through the alphabet (a uniquely human creation, BTW). Then group and sort by predetermined criteria, wave a magic wand, utter the magical phrase of choice from my youth, “A la peanut butter and jelly sandwiches,” and then at last, you’ll have the answer; which beast is best?
Or do you? I submit that at best you have a detailed outline of the manner in which one species differs from another. And they all have some unique trait or two. Sure we’ll agree that some species possess unique traits that are of greater value. And standing alone, the exalted king, mankind, will possess the greatest number of valued traits.
Circumspect, you question the validity of our tally. Like a Floridian governor certifying a disputed election to his brother’s advantage, aren’t we being disingenuous in the least?
No. The comparison was one of biologically useful traits, of which we have many (because we are animals). Many of the things which classify us as human are biological…that is, a question of species in genetics. The sociology of man, however, goes above and beyond comparison to other animals.
I’m not trying to be condescending here, but can you see no difference between apartmnts and beehives? Native American tribes (in history) and gorilla “societies”? (the name for such a group escapes me)
Funcionality is trivial to our race. I don’t know whether this makes us better but it certainly makes us differnt and more complicated.
As usual, ARLover you make good points. I think we’re talking across each other.
Are you suggesting that the development of social interactions is outside of evolution? That it wasn’t selected for?
Actually, it was the differences I was referring to. We live in apartments, but I’m not going to die to help you get your job done the way a bee would, and I would suggest that the social interactions of some species are more productive/successful than ours (depending, of course, on your (human biased) decision of productive/successful qualities).
I’m not sure what the functionality statement means, but I think your last sentence is saying that you agree with the OP- that it doesn’t make us better, just different. Just as there are many species have unique characteristics that make them different, if not better.
Ah, here we are. Yes, I am. That is, many of the things that we have found, stereotypically, to be “artistic” are not things that successfully resulted in reproduction. Our most innovative artists and scientists throughout history have been lonely souls. Interesting that the rest of us have used that art and science to elevate ourselves, though…
This is damn interesting.
If I don’t post again, its because I think you’re right…hmmmm
Good point. I think I agree that the lonely artists haven’t specifically been selected for, but I’m not sure if our species’s continued production of artists (maybe even from earlier homo species) wasn’t selected for. Have to think on it…hmmmm… At the very least it’s the subject of another thread.
If I don’t post again, it’s because I can no longer think.
The intelligence and creativity requisite for these endeavors can be selected, however.
The motivations of the lonely artist/scientist in Western society are interesting to contemplate. Consider that reclusiveness and approval seeking needn’t be mutually exclusive. As long as approval seeking is in the equation the creative endeavor is motivated by primal forces. Consider also that we aren’t exactly overpopulated by those reclusive types. An outlier can easily escape the broad strokes of selection.
This question got me looking around and I found a very interesting article describing just how genetically similar we are to chimpanzees. So much so that we are more closely related than chimps are to gorillas.
By definition we are both:
animal \An"i*mal, n. [L., fr. anima breath, soul: cf. F. animal. See Animate.] 1. An organized living
being endowed with sensation and the power of voluntary motion, and also characterized by taking
its food into an internal cavity or stomach for digestion; by giving carbonic acid to the air and taking
oxygen in the process of respiration; and by increasing in motive power or active aggressive force
with progress to maturity.
Humans are just another species of organisms living on this planet. That we call ourselves superior is just that: calling ourselves superior. In actuality creatures live, percieve (or not), react, have instincts or not, have conditioning or not, metabolize, excrete, procreate, evolve, perform survival tasks, interact (or not) and die and that IS IT. How they do the above varies. So what! Objective superiority implies an inheriant extra-worth but to whom and by what criteria? We aren’t worth much to spiders. By thier critera we probably suck at catching flies or whatever. Saying that we are extra special than other species is lame and unfortanatly the cause of alot of unnecessary extinctions and other stupidity (think enviromental damage), which may just backfire on us as a species in terms of continuation.
