# If not us, who?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 4, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573 "2009-10-04T19:03:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/61 "2009-10-07T13:57:26Z")

</div>

> [@Grendel\_s\_Father](#):
>
> IMO this whole question is very anthropocentric and really anthropomorphises the whole question of intelligence. Why are making tools, buildings, cars, computers etc. the hallmark of intelligence? Because those are behaviors found in humans, and we are humans. So really, the question we’re asking is not “would other animals become sentient,” (or, similarly, “does sentience exist elsewhere in the universe”) it’s would they _become humans_ and to what degree (or do humans exist elsewhere and to what degree).
> 
> What if ants asked the same, self-centered type of questions and completely missed the point?  
> [xkcd: The Search](http://xkcd.com/638/)  
> 🙂

The reason, to my mind, is not so much ‘anthromophism’ as that these sort of advances allow one species to dominate a given ecosystem, to the extent that they end up in effect either managing it or destroying it - becomming not merely the top predator, but something rather more.

Perhaps a species can do this without inventing buildings, cars, etc. Indeed, it would be an interesting question as to what a species that totally dominates an ecosystem would look like, absent these things - perhaps using an extensive biological “technology” with many cultivated symbiotes? Like a giant, self-aware ant nest …

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573/62 "2009-10-08T08:22:28Z")

</div>

I believe a good case could be made for the Mustelidaes (weasel family). They are active, playful and inquisitive creatures, with some species living in large social groups and some being quite creative in opening shellfish (sea otters). Though they may not stand out in any particular way compared to other intelligent animals, I believe they have a fairly well-rounded set of proto-sapient characteristics that just need a little natural selection push to flourish and fill a primate-devoid niche (e.g. they have developable hands that simply need opposable thumbs to build more advanced tools; they could use a somewhat higher encelphalization quotient to improve their cognitive abilities…etc.)

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-us-who/512573.md?page=3)