Dominant Species?

Doesn’t ‘dominant’ just mean ‘has the biggest impact’? It does to me. It doesn’t mean that we’re better, just that we’re more able to do good or bad.

I guess that we’re dominant if you look with human eyes. Everywhere you look there are signs of our presence. I agree with Stray Dog and others about the value of of those contributions though.

If you look with other eyes, well the planet has an atmosphere which contains oxygen. Oxygen is a reactive element, and it would all get mixed in with other chemicals and disappear if it wasn’t being replenished all the time. It would be nice if people would think of that before chopping down the forests.

What would visiting aliens assume to be the dominant (as opposed to the most advanced, or most important) life form?

“Survival of the fittest” is a meaningless phrase.

Define ‘fittest’. Do you mean subjectively more ‘worthy’? Or simply more capable of surviving? To me ‘fittest’ means ‘best able to survive’.

Survival of the survivors. What genius noticed that animals which are better able to survive tend to survive? OK, at the time it was something of a revelation as most people thought that everything had been made by the man in the sky, with humans at the top of the heap.

Today we use ‘fittest’ as justification for being at the top of the heap. We’re the dominant species because we’re more fit, more better, superior.

I’m not sure that we’re in control, and we’re not any more deserving of any special status than any other part of the system. The only difference is that we have the power to consider the consequences of our actions, so I guess that we’re actually at the bottom of the heap as we have to stop and consider the welfare of all other life. Cockroaches don’t have to do that, they can do as they please.

Here’s a thought:

What is the probability of being killed, other than dying of old age, for the average human?

What is the probability of being killed, other than dying of old age, for the average cockroach?

Ditto for other species.

And how would each species’ “satisfaction rating” compare?

I would guess that, as more than half of all humans live in abject poverty, the average satisfaction rating for humans would be a lot lower than for cockroaches. The latter has fewer needs, therefore fewer disappointments.

very interesting points loretta.

it is all how you define dominant.

oh, and thanks to mod lang for clearing up the origin of “survival of the fittest”

i think aliens would first notice all the green. as they got closer they would see that trees are the largest specimens of life. they would probably be first most intrigued by all the plants, other than the multitude of little creatures frittering around them, depending on them for life. without plants nothing else would be here.

jm

[quote=“JOHN MOSS”]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]

I have two words for you…Genetic Engineering

what are these two words: “genetic engineering” supposed to mean??

once again, an example of how humans think they can control their lives.

genetic engineerings ramifications will only be known to future generations.

what, do you own stock in monsanto corporation or something?

just because we can make rice contain betacarotene, we are dominant? just because we can cross a tomato with a potato we are brilliant? just because we can clone-which only passes on the same old genes, we are superior?

i don’t understand your comment. please elaborate…

jm

[quote=“JOHN MOSS”]what are these two words: “genetic engineering” supposed to mean??

just because we can clone-which only passes on the same old genes, we are superior?[/quote]

Some years ago the UK was ravaged by Dutch Elm Disease, which affected, surprisingly, elm trees. According to the latest research:[quote]Researchers, led by Luis Gil from Madrid’s City University, say this makes it possible that English elms found today could all be clones of a single tree shipped over to Britain 2,000 years ago.[/quote]

I don’t know what relevance this has to the topic, but it interested me.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3959561.stm

I am somewhat convinced that humans may become the only species to be directly responsible for their own extinction. We may rule the earth now but just wait a while. (last night CNN said USA is talking about using nukes in Iran)

From what little I absorbed in biology class, ‘fittest’ is the ability to pass on your genes and have your offspring survive to reproduce and so on. In some cases this may mean physical strength but not always. In some bird species it means having a longer or brighter tail to attract a mate.

My vote goes to ants. I moved this week, and when I was moving the fridge to the new place I noticed some maple syrup had been spilled inside. I thought I would finish moving the other things and clean it later. I left to get another load in the truck and when I got back the ants had taken over. Sometimes I just sit and watch ants and marvel at how these tiny creatures can work together to lift objects many times larger than themselves.

One definition of “dominate” is the ability to bend others to your will, for your purposes. You don’t see other animals putting humans in cages at the zoo. Man is the only animal that can cage, kill, or eat all the other species of life. When cockroaches learn to make humans submit to their cans of poison spray, then maybe you could consider them the dominant species.

This is yet another argument for how cats and dogs are the dominant species.

[quote=“mod lang”]This is yet another argument for how cats and dogs are the dominant species.[/quote]And women.