Dominant Species?

This came out of the bull fighting thread, but who or what are the dominant species on this planet.

Contemporary understanding of this would assume that the human race is the dominant species, but are we, how should we measure the requirements to be labelled as such.

Certainly if we look at the kingdom provided by mother nature, then using sheer numbers, many species from the insect world, possibly bird world and probably aquatics would be considered more dominant.

If we look at ability to think and communicate, ie brain power, then again, would the human race be dominant, under our current levels of understanding of all other species then answer probably has to be yes.

I prefer to determine the dominant species, as the one that has the most control over not only its own environment, but all those around, including the entire earth, for both the detriment and the good of all other species.

On that basis, it is my feeling that the human race is the dominent species, but what say you ?

We dominate because we kill everything we see. Then we embalm or tan and display our trophies.

I display mine as a private collection only :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

It is kind of an irony; as I see it the alpha and omega of who controls the planet lies between humans (most evolved species yack, yack, yack) and viruses (“things” that actually lie on the borderline between “life” and “just chemicals”). There are times and places, and I am not just talking about the past, this can and will happen in the future too) when viruses will trump humankind. For a good fictional portrayal see the movie/book Andromeda Strain and for a good real life example refer to AIDS in Africa.

Although I am not a public health specialist; as I see it humans need to keep a bit of modesty because their place on this planet is not as secure as they might like to think. The two greatest threats: other humans and viruses.

And “no, I am not turning into Howard Hughes, afraid of all the germs and locked up in my penthouse on the Vegas strip”.

Virus Brian

Cats and dogs sleep 20 hours a day, get free food and rent, all for doing nothing. Which species dominates whom?

Plus we tolerate stuff like peeing on the rug and ripping our property to shreds, that we would kill fellow humans if they dared try.

The idea that human beings are the dominant species because of their intelligence is wrong. Our so-called intelligence is causing all of the following:

Even a creature as simple as a butterfly is more intelligent than that:

Why? We need so many accessories to communicate and even then we never seem to really understand each other.

Many animals, from insects to birds to other mammals manage to communicate in a far more superior manner when you consider how well they operate with the communication systems they were born with.

We sure can communicate a lot of information, though, to be sure, but other animals don’t need to, it seems.

[quote=“Traveller”]I prefer to determine the dominant species, as the one that has the most control over not only its own environment, but all those around, including the entire earth, for both the detriment and the good of all other species.

On that basis, it is my feeling that the human race is the dominent species, but what say you ?[/quote]

Once again, why? What do you mean by control? We have very little control over the planet when you consider we are constantly fighting to repair the damage that our other forms of progress make - and we seem to be fighting a losing battle.

We measure ‘control’ based on our own way of life, just as we do with intelligence, but consider the cockroach or the virus. They may have little control over the way the environment is being damaged, but they are the ones who will thrive as it all goes to pot. Humanity has taken more than a few nasty hits from viruses, which keeps our numbers in check, so you could argue that viruses are ultimately in control, as they ultimatley control the numbers of humans. All our efforts to beat them just make them stronger - that to me doesn’t show that humans are in control.

Regardless of all that has been said above, man will always take a look at himself and how he behaves and use that as the benchmark by which to measure the faculties of other species. I wonder if other species do the same. :wink:

My vote goes to the cockroaches…

Domination is not the question. It like asking who the winner is in a marriage or any other relationship. We are part of the whole picture. Without the other elements we cannot survive.

The survival of the fittest is also a fallacy. When the fittest of the fit finally destroys the last other species, it also destroys itself.

Humans…because we understand what hope means…

I second that! Trying get those bastards out of your apartment. And you can only wonder what they do while you’re sleeping… :astonished:

the whole mission of life has always been to pass on your genetic material to the next generation. and for your genetic material to go on the phenotype must adapt to current conditions. humans are very primitive in this respect because our generation time averages 20 years.

things like the insects, micro-organisms and viruses can have generation times of hours or minutes, with the next genotype being better than the one before. humans will become extinct while many other creatures will go on, such as the cockroaches and viruses mentioned previously.

humans will be gone in a few million years, but things like cockroaches, beetles, flies, bacteria, viruses will be trucking along.

they are better at continuing their lines well into the future, probably until the earth crashes into the sun in 5 billion years, or until the sun burns out in 5 billion years. they will be along for the ride, therefore dominating the whole purpose of life.

humans and other mammals, birds, and most other creatures whose generation times are measured in years will be phased out by the quicker generation time creatures.

humans will be a blip of the earths history when the earth is gone. others will have reined for millions, perhaps billions of years.

jm

[quote=“Rinkals”]Domination is not the question. It like asking who the winner is in a marriage or any other relationship. We are part of the whole picture. Without the other elements we cannot survive.

The survival of the fittest is also a fallacy. When the fittest of the fit finally destroys the last other species, it also destroys itself.[/quote]

The best post so far, if you want my opinion. :bravo:

funny how the OP interprets dominance as the ability to change an environment. I see that more as human hubris than anything else. Isn’t adaptation preferable?

What’s a dominant species? a species that is more successful in resource-gathering (whether foraging, scavenging, hunting, or for us, farming, husbandry, etc) and procreation than its competitors. Resource gathering implies a dependency relationship. We depend on the seed to turn into grain, the fruit to bear, the calf to be born. The lion depends on the gazelle, the spider on the cricket. But if one is too successful and wipes out his prey, then the predator suffers a dieback. If a lion wipes out the gazelles in his territory, no more food. If elephants eat up all vegetation, then no more food. What mitigates this sometimes is the organism’s ability to move to a “new pasture”. The elephant moves to a different location allowing vegetation to grow back. But if too many elephants are successful, and more success at procreation, and thus higher population, at some point there may not be enough new pasture. Again, there is dieback.

This also happens with humans despite our intelligence and technology. Farm a piece of land too much, and it turns into a dustbowl. Fertilizers only mitigate. Fish all the cod in the Laurentians, and no more cod. Fish all the orange roughy before they can reproduce, gone. Thus, in the extreme, such “dominant” species end up wiping themselves.

So, to me, a dominant species is better defined as a capable competitor, but one living within his means, not killing the goose that lays its golden egg: A balance, but still a very dynamic one in which life and death struggle still exists in every moment, every day.

[quote=“Jack Burton”]funny how the OP interprets dominance as the ability to change an environment. I see that more as human hubris than anything else. Isn’t adaptation preferable?

What’s a dominant species? a species that is more successful in resource-gathering (whether foraging, scavenging, hunting, or for us, farming, husbandry, etc) and procreation than its competitors. Resource gathering implies a dependency relationship. We depend on the seed to turn into grain, the fruit to bear, the calf to be born. The lion depends on the gazelle, the spider on the cricket. But if one is too successful and wipes out his prey, then the predator suffers a dieback. If a lion wipes out the gazelles in his territory, no more food. If elephants eat up all vegetation, then no more food. What mitigates this sometimes is the organism’s ability to move to a “new pasture”. The elephant moves to a different location allowing vegetation to grow back. But if too many elephants are successful, and more success at procreation, and thus higher population, at some point there may not be enough new pasture. Again, there is dieback.

This also happens with humans despite our intelligence and technology. Farm a piece of land too much, and it turns into a dustbowl. Fertilizers only mitigate. Fish all the cod in the Laurentians, and no more cod. Fish all the orange roughy before they can reproduce, gone. Thus, in the extreme, such “dominant” species end up wiping themselves.

So, to me, a dominant species is better defined as a capable competitor, but one living within his means, not killing the goose that lays its golden egg: A balance, but still a very dynamic one in which life and death struggle still exists in every moment, every day.[/quote]

If you’re going to go posting intelligent responses, can you start your own thread?!

Great post, JB - very good points to consider.

I think a dominant species should also be good at knitting, too, though, and I notice you didn’t mention that.

Knitting of course is implied as it, or the tolerance of knitting, is key to procreation and it is also implied with adaptation to, cold environments or trendy enviroments as the case may be.

I truly believe that, with the gift of consciousness/awareness/intelligence, we as a species ought to be guardians of our world. The Bible says that God made us lord over all beasts and things. But the good master takes care of his own.

yeah, but,

stray dog and rinkals,

survival of the fittest was dubbed by charles darwin; but he did not mean a survival of the fittest down to the last, lone species on earth.

he was referring to intra-species competition. that is the giraffe with a slightly longer neck was able to eat more, therefore, more likely to pass on its genes as oppossed to the shorter necked giraffe that may have starved to death, therefore not passing on its genes.

he did not mean that all the billion species on earth are on a race to the end. darwin knew that life on earth is a complex web. we’ve known this for many years now.

so i don’t think survival of the fittest is a fallacy. i think it works within each species, and even within very closely related species- since he came upon this theory while observing finches with different types of beaks-each was specialized in their feeding, therefore specializing, and breeding, while at the same time allowing closely related species to specialize in their feeding, and pass on their different genes.

jm

I missed your previous post, JM, which made some excellent points.

I agree with your next post above, but I do have to say that man (on the whole) does seem to be careering along with so much selfish regard that we often do seem to be competing against other species.

Our abuse of the land and earth’s resources is done in detriment to the other species because we believe - ignorantly - that we have some right to do so because our blinkered intelligence tells us that we are the ‘superior’ being on this planet and therefore can act with impunity … when actually we are bringing the punishment upon ourselves, as we will discover once the human population reaches unsustainable proportions, particlularly in relation to the resources, flora and fauna we have crushed on our little joyride.

As you pointed out, the human race is still in its trial period when compared to the longevity of some of the reptilian species; we are being blase if we state that we have ‘succeeded’ in dominating this beautiful planet we were all meant to share.

Give us a few thousand more years and we’ll see just how successful we are/were as a race.

Sean

i think of things in the grand scheme.

i compare the existence of humans over the thousands of years we will be here to that of a colony of bacteria.

the bacteria colony can grow and multiply, but only to a point. eventually they die in their own toxins.

humans will grow and multiply, different only in that we will take a lot longer until we reach the breaking point and die off in our own toxins.

those toxins will come in many forms-pollution, overcrowded conditions which lead to disease, and the planetary effects like global warming, not to mention that we are currently building many super resistant strains of bacteria and viruses every time we use antibacterial soaps, medicines and the like.

i agree we do compete with other creatures, but that does not make us dominant. we will die in our own excrement, while others will eat our wastes and continue the journey of passing on their genes, after ours are a memory. our legacy on this planet will be altered ecosystems, but ecosystems that continue anyway. the earth is very resilient and will continue despite our tinkering with things like extinction, ecotype exploitation, and our vast history of pollution of all types.

jm

I second that! Trying get those bastards out of your apartment. And you can only wonder what they do while you’re sleeping… :astonished:[/quote]

Like I said, cats are the dominant species. Cockroaches don’t stand a chance against Tabby.

Oh and BTW, Darwin never used the term “survival of the fittest”. That’s a vulgarization of Darwinism coined by Social Darwinest Herbert Spencer.