I guess you would have to define your terms. What do you mean by superior?
exactly.
the problem as i see it is that we resort immediately to concepts of good and bad or positive or negative effects. morality can't be used as a measurement, because it is largely subjective. if we want to arrive at any kind of definite answer we need to use something that can't be argued endlessly by way of opinion. yeah. easier said than done.
first off, we need to decide whether we are going to include capabilities granted to humans through the things we create (tools and so on) as evidence of our superiority. if not, it becomes a whole new question altogether, but i would tend to say an irrelevant one. so for the purposes of this argument, technology will be included as a characteristic of humanity.
by my way of thinking, what we must do is identify the core and observable aims of essentially every species on earth, and then establish which species satisfy them all and to the greatest and most comprehensive extent.
the first instinctive aim of all life is to breed, no living thing exists without this urge. as humans, we have developed systems to satisfy this urge that surpass anything any other animal has achieved. pornography, prostitution and the like coupled with artificial insemination, adoption, surrogate mothers and so on have created an environment where humans no longer need even attract a mate to have sex, or be physically capable of having a child in order to have one anyway.
the second imperative is obviously food and water, or to use a more general term, sustenance. again, humans have produced an undeniably advanced (at least in comparison to other species) system of producing and transporting sustenance. even in the most primitive of human conditions, simple water pumps, farming etc outstrip the means established by other animals.
shelter, arguably the third common goal of the majority of living things, has to go hands down to humanity. our vast cities dwarf most physical features of the planet itself.
using this system of logic, humans do seem to be the superior species on the planet, but if you are still unsatisfied by that humans do indeed meet all the needs of life most effectively, one can simply point to humanity's deep interest in creation as evidence. it makes sense that any creature will not fashion a tool, write a book, or experiment with art, if it starving or in need of shelter. essentially, all acts of creation exist when the immediate need to satisfy basic living impulses is satisfied. that no other animal has created to the extent that mankind has created is proof that mankind has sated the basic urges like no other species has.
yeah, humanity: for a hard-earned thirst.
however, this theory only works as a kind of snapshot thing. as has been pointed out endlessly, our way of life is in no way sustainable, so if the ability to survive as a species over great lengths of time where to be included, we most certainly fall short.
exactly.
the problem as i see it is that we resort immediately to concepts of good and bad or positive or negative effects. morality can't be used as a measurement, because it is largely subjective. if we want to arrive at any kind of definite answer we need to use something that can't be argued endlessly by way of opinion. yeah. easier said than done.
first off, we need to decide whether we are going to include capabilities granted to humans through the things we create (tools and so on) as evidence of our superiority. if not, it becomes a whole new question altogether, but i would tend to say an irrelevant one. so for the purposes of this argument, technology will be included as a characteristic of humanity.
by my way of thinking, what we must do is identify the core and observable aims of essentially every species on earth, and then establish which species satisfy them all and to the greatest and most comprehensive extent.
the first instinctive aim of all life is to breed, no living thing exists without this urge. as humans, we have developed systems to satisfy this urge that surpass anything any other animal has achieved. pornography, prostitution and the like coupled with artificial insemination, adoption, surrogate mothers and so on have created an environment where humans no longer need even attract a mate to have sex, or be physically capable of having a child in order to have one anyway.
the second imperative is obviously food and water, or to use a more general term, sustenance. again, humans have produced an undeniably advanced (at least in comparison to other species) system of producing and transporting sustenance. even in the most primitive of human conditions, simple water pumps, farming etc outstrip the means established by other animals.
shelter, arguably the third common goal of the majority of living things, has to go hands down to humanity. our vast cities dwarf most physical features of the planet itself.
using this system of logic, humans do seem to be the superior species on the planet, but if you are still unsatisfied by that humans do indeed meet all the needs of life most effectively, one can simply point to humanity's deep interest in creation as evidence. it makes sense that any creature will not fashion a tool, write a book, or experiment with art, if it starving or in need of shelter. essentially, all acts of creation exist when the immediate need to satisfy basic living impulses is satisfied. that no other animal has created to the extent that mankind has created is proof that mankind has sated the basic urges like no other species has.
yeah, humanity: for a hard-earned thirst.
however, this theory only works as a kind of snapshot thing. as has been pointed out endlessly, our way of life is in no way sustainable, so if the ability to survive as a species over great lengths of time where to be included, we most certainly fall short.
the prize would then go to trees or some such.