For what reason(s) do humans rule other species and do those reasons apply within the species?

I take it as a given that humans rule other species. Surely there are reaon(s) for this. What do you think they are?

Do they same reasons have analogues in terms of which groups rule/dominate other groups, for example, nations or businesses?

Do those same reasons apply between individuals? Are the characteristics that make humans dominate other species the same set of characteristics that makes it so one individual is likely to dominate another?

When I say “rule” or “dominate”, I mean in in both the sense of being able to exert your will upon others but also in terms or being able to get more of what you want (e.g.: wealth). If you don’t wish to touch the issue of domination between groups of humans with a ten foot pole, just jump straight to the individual level.

The most interesting and informative things to consider are those that are taken as a given. Examine and test your presumptions before extending them to other situation.

Humans rule other species because we have the most intelligence. We have the ability to organize ourselves, build cities, armies, nuclear bombs etc. But we’re far from the most physically powerful species out there. If lions had intelligence comparable to ours, and had developed this intelligence at the same time that humans did, then lions would be dominating the hell out of us.

I disagree, because we have the advantage of much more dextrous appendages. True domination probably requires the help of technology and really smart lions probably aren’t getting nearly as far as us if the have ten times more trouble doing anything needing delicate manipulation.

There was, in fact, an Arthur C. Clarke story involving a race of super-intelligent lions (at least that’s how I pictured them) who realize their future is actually through a less intelligent race on their planet who have hands with fingers instead of hooves.

For the OP, though, I agree intelligence is the key factor. And I don’t see why you can’t apply on an individual level. Smart people can generally acquire the means to dominate not so smart people if they so desire.

If you have arguments that show me I’m wrong to presume that, please share them.

To others:
So far, intelligence seems to be a big factor. What does intelligence enable that’s so useful?
Do the smartest tend to be in dominant positions? Is it the smartest who also have some other qualities?

snip.

Abstract thought. This is probably the single greatest benefit of intelligence. The ability to separate and conceptualize instead of merely reacting. Other animals are able to do this to a limited degree, but the average human version is orders of magnitude above the best the rest of the animal kingdom has demonstrated so far.

Humans “rule” over a handful of domesticated species because we control their food supply, reproduction, etc. We “rule” over a few individuals of other species when we keep them in zoos where we control their food supply, reproduction, etc.

We have some influence over some other species when we alter their habitat in some way that may either be favorable (e.g. rats) or unfavorable (various endangered species) to their their food supply, reproduction, etc.

The vast majority of species couldn’t care less about humans. There are something like a half million species of beetles on the planet. How do you imagine that we rule them?

I postulate that groups of humans come to dominate other groups of humans because of our species’s tribalistic tendency to classify other beings as “us” or “them”. And our tribalism has no extra-species outlet. If humanity were below or relatively equal to something else in the (relatively) local food chain–say an alien species on Mars was at war with Earth–then I feel confident that humanity would more-or-less unite against it and the manufactured differences we currently fight over (race, sexual orientation, religion, money) would disappear. Every species on earth with the exception of humans has a predator of some kind to worry about and unite against. I think this has a lot to do with why humans have so much infighting. There’s also the fact that technology and communication have effectively shrunk the world faster than we were ready for. Slow exposure to different points of view may have nurtured open minds. Slamming us all together quickly doesn’t work so well.

As it is right now, no extant Earth species could hope to unite against and overpower humanity. They’re either too weak, too stupid, too incurious, too undexterous(sp?), not communicative enough, or too small. And they’re millennia behind us when it comes to technology. Humans have come to dominate the structure of the planet (and the food chain) due to a combination of our intellect, communication, curiosity, innovation, technology, and fine motor control.

Dolphins could very well rule over the seas one day (they are possibly the most intelligent thing out there), but their need to stay wet and their stubby flippers will severely limit their ability to express their curiosity and innovation. Unless they figure out how to utilize cheap anemone labor :wink:

I don’t know that this is really a GQ though. It’s going to be hard to prove an opinion. I’m sure there are lots more factors than I or anyone else is thinking of, that would all contribute.

Humans say we rule all other species because it’s just too humiliating for us to admit the truth, that cockroaches completely pwn us.

Given that this is a very open-ended question, and requires a good deal of opinion and speculation, it’s better suited for GD than GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

I am not sure if you mean all other species or a given subset of other species, but we certainly are very limited in our dominance. The term rule may only be extended to domesticated species and that is about it. Certain species have adapted quite well to forming social hierarchies with humans, such as dogs and cats. In the sense that these animals participate in a social hierarchy we may be able to rule them on an individual basis.

Other than a few domesticated animals, no other species participates in our social hierarchies. They can be left along or destroyed but not in any way ruled. These other species do not follow, and we do not lead.

Going on to your why’s: The ability of one individual to dominate another in a social hierarchy is the ability of one individual to amass and protect resources better than another member. This structuring forces the dominated member of the hierarchy to give in and cooperate in order to gain these resources, or leave and seek these resources elsewhere. The ability to place yourself in a position above another is specific to how well you are able to wield force over another. Whatever form that force takes, you have to be able to have more of it than a competitor or be defeated.

Going back to species, the force we exert over other species is similar to the coercive force of predation (lion vs. baby water buffalo), resource grabbing (hyena vs. lion), or destroying property for our needs (locusts). None of these examples include the subservience and cooperation found in dominance hierarchies.

Maybe we’re just not applying ourselves. Robot bees could be employed to stimulate depleted hives for instance.

Alright, let me rephrase: Why are humans at the top of the food chain?

Technology probably drove the last steps of our evolution. And Technology is driven by intelligence and abstract thought. Our hands adapted to tool use, until they were dextrous enough to fashion the tools to our hand. At which point things really took off.

I think that abstract thought led to the tool use that developed our hand; and having that hand led to even greater abstract thought being an advantage. Our mind shaped our hand, and then our hand shaped our mind.

If lions had been intelligent enough for tool use… And tool use was an advantage to them… Then those better able to use a tool would have survived and evolved into better tool users; just as we did. Giant Pandas, starting out with a typical paw, developed a servicable “thumb” out of adapted wrist bones because it was advantagous for harvesting the bamboo they were forced to adapt to. Imagine if they had also had abstract thought.

The reason we dominate other species is that our use of technology allows us to “evolve” faster and with more direction than genetically. We don’t have to wait to evolve fur - we can develop clothing and then the same species that evolved to survive on the African savannas can thrive in sub-Arctic regions. We don’t need to evolve claws or fangs - we have knives.

Add to that the domestication of fire, and our ability to communicate symbolically, and we have a huge advantage over other large-bodied predators. The only species we have trouble with are fast-breeding, fast-evolving species like insects (as mentioned earlier), and although inconvenient, they are no threat to our long-term survival.

If some more advanced species showed up with hugely superior technology, it would end up like the Amerindians did - they would dominate us almost without intending to. We would either assimilate their technology, or be marginalized. There probably would not be the mass die-offs from infections that are responsible for most of the Amerindian deaths after the European influx, but I doubt we would be regarded as anything more than a nuisance species if we had something the aliens wanted. Think of how ranchers think of wolves in the US.

Regards,
Shodan

For what reason do humans rule over trees and other plants? For that matter, what gives us the right to dominate rocks, smashing them up and… moving them around and shit?

Why do we judge animals to be superior to vegetables and minerals? It’s all just atoms.

To “rule” in the sense of exerting one’s “will” over another is almost purely a function of intelligence, whether cross-species or within populations within a species.

Intelligence allows for less subjugation to the vicissitudes of nature, for the creation of better weapons where force is needed to dominate, for better anticipation of future events, for better amelioration of untoward events, and so on.

Note that “rule” is not the same as being the most successful, which may have other definitions such as longevity of a species. I’m with Chronos and the cockroaches on that one.

Why do we judge Da Vinci’s art to be superior to that of a finger-painting toddler? It’s all just paint.

We’re not, really. Plenty of alpha predators eat us.

We’re near the top of the food chain largely because we’re big. The list of creatures physically able to predate on us is relatively small, even ignoring our ability to use tools.

I don’t see dogs going around and picking up our poop.:smiley:

Because we can.

Humans are able to “rule” or at least influence other people when they have control over something they need or want. The person who has that control is able to do as they see fit with it.