Who's next to take our place?

[roquefort]

Harharth, you're assuming they'd need to be terrestrial, and furthermore, that they simply couldnt build technology to replace limbs. Dolphins are tool builders, they wrap their snouts in kelp before rooting about in course sand. they use rocks, they use sticks, they're able to self recognise, they're basicaly as good as chims, but we think they're just dumb sea mammals because they dont have arms and legs, and frankly, that's just silly.

 

I mean, if I cut off Steven Hawking's arms and legs, would he be any less a genius? no, he'd still be one of the smartest people alive, only we'd have to call him Mat because he was a quadruple amputee. Number of legs does not effect intelligence or mentle ablity.

 

And Robco, i think you're spot on. Octopi are VERY smart, and logical, and clever, and cunning, and to indear them to people who demand legs over smartness, yes, they have legs. Or is that arms?

 

Wolves are a contender. It's been proven that whenever humans pull out, wolves move in. They're none too adaptable, but they're phenominaly intelligent.

Wolves are definitely a contender. They're tough & hardy, smart, good at teamwork, and adaptable -- man's best friend is basically a wolf under the skin.

[GetOutOfBox]

Wolves are a contender. It's been proven that whenever humans pull out, wolves move in. They're none too adaptable, but they're phenominaly intelligent.

 

That makes no sense, you're saying that it's proven that every time humans leave an area, wolves are guaranteed to replace humans in the area? I don't see wolves invading the Gobi Dessert if humans living in that area left.

 

Wolves possess a good deal of social intelligence, though I would not say they are phenomenally intelligent. In fact, dogs have more developed social cognition than wolves, when it comes to inter-species communication.

 

This whole topic really doesn't make sense, since like I said, there are no known races that will just suddenly take over the world if we were to be destroyed, there's no reason why animal behavior would suddenly so drastically change just because of the eradication of humans, and no currently known species are intelligent enough to even conceive the concept of ruling the world, let alone doing it. Humans and some primates are the only known races to demonstrate abstract thought, a critical element in our success as a species.

[Keanumoreira]

Wolves are a contender. It's been proven that whenever humans pull out, wolves move in. They're none too adaptable, but they're phenominaly intelligent.

 

I don't see wolves invading the Gobi Dessert if humans living in that area left.

 

 

That's just overcomplicating things.

 

 

This whole topic really doesn't make sense

 

 

Ummm...ok, I don't see how it doesn't make sense. It's a perfectly logical question to see what animal would most likely replace us in terms of a new civilization. I don't understand what's so confusing about that.

 

 

there's no reason why animal behavior would suddenly so drastically change just because of the eradication of humans.

 

 

No one ever said it had to happen right away, and yes our civilization would have to disappear first in order for a new species to rise to power since it is us who is hendering that progress.

 

 

No currently known species are intelligent enough to even conceive the concept of ruling the world, let alone doing it. Humans and some primates are the only known races to demonstrate abstract thought, a critical element in our success as a species.

 

 

That is absoultely false.

 

There are animals that are capable of evolving into the ability to rule the world, they just didn't have enough time to do so because we beat them to the punch (Or so the theory go's). Humans and primates are not the only creatures to produce abstract thought either; some of the animals mentioned here are well capable of doing it.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Keanumoreira

[AliasTheory]

Seems we are talking about evolutionary potential now rather than a more literal approach, aka, what if we all died tomorrow. But anyway.

 

It is in the common belief that you would need to grow arms and whatnot before evolving in terms of intelligence.

 

Sources? Biologically, why does an organism need these limbs in order to get our all-powerful brain? This seems like an oversimplification. To me, arms and fingers are just tools to build and expand the scope of exploration, so I'd say the potential still exists. Although dolphins may not be able to run experiments and such like how us humans do, would this make them any less intelligent to begin with? We're looking at capability, not "I know 1x1 but a minute later I know 0 factorial, therefore that makes me smarter." I say mental capacity in general doesn't relate to the extent to which it is exercised. If there are some scientific experiments about that I would love to see them, but quantifying intelligence is difficult. You would have to assume something like IQ is absolute, and in the long term study, age would have to be accounted for.

 

There are animals that are capable of evolving into the ability to rule the world...

 

...which does not imply the active intellectual ability of currently known species, so I wouldn't say this is an appropriate response. But seeing where we humans came from, why not? Evolution, if it is true, seems like it can do some pretty cool stuff. So I'd say you're right there. With that all said, I do still agree with you on this standpoint. I think if we could somehow bestow to dolphins our massive amounts of information about the world, they could conceive of doing such a thing. They may not be able to do it now, but the potential just may exist. How do we know dolphins are "dumber" than us?

 

Also. One of my favorite creatures on Earth. :)

 

I mean, if I cut off Steven Hawking's arms and legs, would he be any less a genius? no, he'd still be one of the smartest people alive, only we'd have to call him Mat because he was a quadruple amputee. Number of legs does not effect intelligence or mentle ablity.

 

I say you're true, but I would say your analogy here is a bit shaky when considering Box's stance. How can you ask that rhetorical question when we're debating if the capability to explore (via arms, etc) relates to intelligence potential, which in turn relates to who would rule the Earth? It seems like you're talking about two close moments in time while Box is talking about something more long term; not the same thing if you ask me.

 

This whole topic really doesn't make sense, since like I said, there are no known races that will just suddenly take over the world if we were to be destroyed, there's no reason why animal behavior would suddenly so drastically change just because of the eradication of humans, and no currently known species are intelligent enough to even conceive the concept of ruling the world, let alone doing it.

 

There is sense to this topic. Species dominance doesn't mean that species has to rule the world. We're looking at environmental influence per unit of biomass. We've obviously done a whole lot as a species, but we are really just looking at the extent relative to other species on the planet. There is debate but hard to lay a finger on since measuring influence isn't easy. Like intelligence, how do you quantify this? One can only get so specific before things get fuzzy. Which is more influential: burying holes that unintentionally make living spaces for wildlife, or removing trees for a similar purpose? Who and what is exactly influenced, and how do those factors influence the environment? In short: we don't really know. Too many connections to count, and a lack of predictability.

 

Also Box, you're right about the roaches, kinda misunderstood the topic. I wouldn't want the world to be ruled by roaches anyway.

Edited December 15, 2010 by AliasTheory

[marharth]

The reason I said the stuff about limbs was because humans grew arms and legs before advancing in intelligence.

 

I do not mean arms and legs like humans arms and legs, I mean some kind of extra limbs that would allow you to walk on land, and grip/build things easily.

 

If there is something like aliens that would replace us. It would have already done so. Its not like a bunch of aliens will decide to land here a bit after we all died out and set up civilization.

Edited December 16, 2010 by marharth

[Karasuman]

I strongly believe it would be cockroaches. They have an adaptability and survivability that other animal species can only dream of, coupled with mega-fast reproduction. Cockroaches don't just mate, they are procreation machines. I also read that a roach can live off the oil of a single human hair for a month. Seriously, what else has that?

 

We as humans may look down on roaches and see them as filthy creatures beneath us, but they are one of the oldest animal species in existence (in fact I believe *the* oldest creatures that are not currently extinct), and they continue to thrive. They were here long before we were and they will be here long after we destroy ourselves.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Karasuman

[marharth]

I strongly believe it would be cockroaches. They have an adaptability and survivability that other animal species can only dream of, coupled with mega-fast reproduction. Cockroaches don't just mate, they are procreation machines. I also read that a roach can live off the oil of a single human hair for a month. Seriously, what else has that?

 

We as humans may look down on roaches and see them as filthy creatures beneath us, but they are one of the oldest animal species in existence (in fact I believe *the* oldest creatures that are not currently extinct), and they continue to thrive. They were here long before we were and they will be here long after we destroy ourselves.

But they are small, and don't have a good defensive system.

 

It is very unlikely cockroaches will take over. If they get in the way of a larger predator the larger predator will destroy them easily.

 

As you said, they are one of the oldest creatures in existence and humans still rose above them, along with quite a few other species.

[Thor.]

I say Octopus has a good chance at it, i mean they are considered to be the most intelligent sea creatures on the planet.

 

Here's proof lol.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5DyBkYKqnM&feature=related

Edited December 16, 2010 by Thor.

[GetOutOfBox]

Wolves are a contender. It's been proven that whenever humans pull out, wolves move in. They're none too adaptable, but they're phenominaly intelligent.

 

I don't see wolves invading the Gobi Dessert if humans living in that area left.

 

 

That's just overcomplicating things.

 

 

This whole topic really doesn't make sense

 

 

Ummm...ok, I don't see how it doesn't make sense. It's a perfectly logical question to see what animal would most likely replace us in terms of a new civilization. I don't understand what's so confusing about that.

 

 

there's no reason why animal behavior would suddenly so drastically change just because of the eradication of humans.

 

 

No one ever said it had to happen right away, and yes our civilization would have to disappear first in order for a new species to rise to power since it is us who is hendering that progress.

 

 

No currently known species are intelligent enough to even conceive the concept of ruling the world, let alone doing it. Humans and some primates are the only known races to demonstrate abstract thought, a critical element in our success as a species.

 

 

That is absoultely false.

 

There are animals that are capable of evolving into the ability to rule the world, they just didn't have enough time to do so because we beat them to the punch (Or so the theory go's). Humans and primates are not the only creatures to produce abstract thought either; some of the animals mentioned here are well capable of doing it.

 

No animal has ever been known to show even the most remote interest in world domination, its unlikely any animals currently known can even conceive the idea of there being a world beyond their ecozone (aka territory; the area the remain in). Even Chimpanzee's, the 2nd most intelligent species, are less intelligent than Human toddlers. Most animals can even be recognised as conscious, a majority of organisms on the planet exhibit autonomous behavior, some don't even have a central nervous system, or a highly underdeveloped brain (i.e insects, crustaceans, etc).

 

Basically what you and a majority of people in this thread seem to believe, is that many animals are right on the verge of intelligence equal to or more than ours, and that only our current position as the superior race is preventing them from assuming their roles as rulers of the planet. This is fundamentally incorrect, as even primates such as chimpanzees, well refuted for their high intelligence and social cognition, are much less sophisticated than humans. People tend to misinterpret high social cognitive abilities as sophisticated intelligence. For example, Dogs are well known for their strong social connection to humans, generally being able to understand various basic human behaviors and gestures. This does not mean they are an intelligent species, it simply means that a certain aspect of their intelligence is (relatively) sophisticated, they still have vastly inferior development in areas such as abstract reasoning, planning, temporal cognition, and communication (when dogs bark/whine, etc, they are not "speaking" to each other in the sense of a language, they are simply conveying basic emotions, i.e anger, fear, dominance, subservience, pleasure, etc).

 

The fact remains that few species are even evolving in the direction that humans did (high intelligence), and those few are still hundreds of thousands of years (at least around 150 000 years)away from possibly reaching the development we're at. None of the races would just spontaneously become intelligent and start ruling the world, they would likely continue on as they have for the last few hundred thousand years, eating, s***ing, mating, dieing. (arguably humans do that as well, but we do other things too ;) )

 

P.S Don't use "that's just complicating things" as a counter-argument, then proceed to write a long TL;DR post based on pseudo-science. Kind of hypocritical. Just saying.

Edited December 16, 2010 by GetOutOfBox

[Karasuman]

@Marharth. I should clarify that I don't think that roaches will reign supreme over superior predators if any said predators survived some sort of cataclysm, but roaches could possibly have free reign for a while by default simply because there might not be enough of anything else left to seriously oppose their spread.

 

Edit: I also agree with GetOut. The main reason animals wouldn't "rule the world" so to speak is because animals don't really care about ruling the world. Roaches couldn't care less who "owns" the world because they're perfectly content being hardy scavengers. It's what they are.

 

But, My main point with cockroaches is simply that they could be the "de facto" inheritors only because they will survive events almost every other animal species will not.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Karasuman