Who's next to take our place?

[GetOutOfBox]

@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 could 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.

 

I agree with you on that, this thread would make more sense if we were simply talking which races would likely survive a cataclysm/creatures with the largest population (which would arguably be bacteria)

[marharth]

If we are talking about a major disaster that wipes out all of the human race, then I highly doubt roaches would survive that.

 

It is a common myth that roaches can survive massive amounts of radiation (they are a lot more resistant to it due to having a lot less cells, but they can't survive it).

 

Roaches wouldn't survive a nuke at any place humans couldn't survive it. Same thing with some kind of solar flare.

 

I can't really think of any situation where humans wouldn't survive, but roaches would.

[Karasuman]

If we are talking about a major disaster that wipes out all of the human race, then I highly doubt roaches would survive that.

 

It is a common myth that roaches can survive massive amounts of radiation (they are a lot more resistant to it due to having a lot less cells, but they can't survive it).

 

Roaches wouldn't survive a nuke at any place humans couldn't survive it. Same thing with some kind of solar flare.

 

I can't really think of any situation where humans wouldn't survive, but roaches would.

 

Solar cataclysm, no, I agree they would not survive. Man-made nukes, however, I disagree. Any amount of radiation beyond 5 rems is considered dangerous to humans. 800 rems is death.

 

On the flip side of this:

 

"A rem is the measurement of radiation dosages that will cause a measured amount of injury to human tissue. Insect researchers have found that the lethal dose for the American cockroach is 67,500 rems and for the German cockroach it is between 90,000 and 105,000 rems. The amount of radiation that cockroaches can withstand is equivalent to that of a thermonuclear explosion."

 

This is not simply because they have less cells than humans do. It has more to do with the fact that their cells don't divide constantly like ours do. A roach's cells only divide once a week or less.

 

Now, unfortunately for some of the roaches, many would die from the heat of course, but many more would be far away from epicenters, either underground or wherever else. They can get into practically anything. Thus the assumption that most roaches would live through a nuclear holocaust is indeed a myth. Many would die from heat exposure. It is also however a myth that they would all die off just as the humans would. 105,000 rems is a *lot* of resistance, and the radiation levels in the air at ground level would never again reach anywhere near that high after the initial blasts were over. The roaches that were not roasted crispy within the blast radii would in fact stand more than a chance of survival where *all* humans would be extinct.

 

Moral of the story: Completely burying those cocka-roaches by man-made means would be next to impossible.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Karasuman

[marharth]

If we are talking about a major disaster that wipes out all of the human race, then I highly doubt roaches would survive that.

 

It is a common myth that roaches can survive massive amounts of radiation (they are a lot more resistant to it due to having a lot less cells, but they can't survive it).

 

Roaches wouldn't survive a nuke at any place humans couldn't survive it. Same thing with some kind of solar flare.

 

I can't really think of any situation where humans wouldn't survive, but roaches would.

 

Solar cataclysm, no, I agree they would not survive. Man-made nukes, however, I disagree. Any amount of radiation beyond 5 rems is considered dangerous to humans. 800 rems is death.

 

On the flip side of this:

 

"A rem is the measurement of radiation dosages that will cause a measured amount of injury to human tissue. Insect researchers have found that the lethal dose for the American cockroach is 67,500 rems and for the German cockroach it is between 90,000 and 105,000 rems. The amount of radiation that cockroaches can withstand is equivalent to that of a thermonuclear explosion."

 

This is not simply because they have less cells than humans do. It has more to do with the fact that their cells don't divide constantly like ours do. A roach's cells only divide once a week or less.

 

Now, unfortunately for some of the roaches, many would die from the heat of course, but many more would be far away from epicenters, either underground or wherever else. They can get into practically anything. Thus the assumption that most roaches would live through a nuclear holocaust is indeed a myth. Many would die from heat exposure. It is also however a myth that they would all die off just as the humans would. 105,000 rems is a *lot* of resistance, and the radiation levels in the air at ground level would never again reach anywhere near that high after the initial blasts were over. The roaches that were not roasted crispy within the blast radii would in fact stand more than a chance of survival where *all* humans would be extinct.

 

Moral of the story: Completely burying those cocka-roaches by man-made means would be next to impossible.

Well what I am saying is that a lot of humans would still survive in the situation of mass nuclear war...

[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.

 

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.

 

 

No one ever said, again, that it's going to happen right away. Of course there are no animals on the planet on the verge of an intelligence breakthrough, and yes, our civilization is getting in the way because it is disrupting the delicate process needed for such an event to occur.

 

P.S to your P.S: My response was in no way pseudo; my responses to the topic, and applying the already proven evidence of complex thought is not pseudo science the last time I remember. And about the theories: They may not have been proven, but to say they are false is not even trying to understand it. To say that humans are the only species capable of this level of cognitive thinking is itself false. Why? Because these chimpanzees you seem to dismiss have already given the facts. As you said, they are no smarter than a human toddler...however...toddlers are still human. There's your proof.

[GetOutOfBox]

As you said, they are no smarter than a human toddler...however...toddlers are still human. There's your proof.

I think you experienced a logic fail, as the meaning of the phrase "chimpanzee's are less intelligent than human toddlers" does not equal "chimpanzee's are as smart as human toddler's" which is what you seem to be saying.

 

A human toddler is practically a genius compared to a chimpanzee, and even if chimps were as smart as a toddler, there intelligence still won't improve through evolution for a very long time, as in thousands and thousands of years, perhaps a few hundred thousand.

 

And claiming that there one of the known species of animals will just spontaneously (don't bother saying "I know it won't be instantly", we're talking at least a few hundred thousand years before any current species other than humans reaches an intelligence sophisticated enough to form a civilization) form a civilization is pseudo-science. You're basing your theories off of assumptions that have no credible evidence to support them, hence they're pseudo-science.

[marharth]

I still think we have no way of guessing...

 

If humans get wiped out its unlikely much will survive.

 

Lets put the situation as the entire human race leaving the earth on a space ship.

 

Now that humans are gone, what will happen? Building will become homes for animals, that's all I can really guess.

 

We need to set up a universal scenario before continuing with this debate...

[Karasuman]

Humans leaving the earth would probably be the best thing that ever happened to it. But, if something such as that did happen, I would have to believe that roughly the same things would begin happening that were going on before we got here.

 

Re-forestation would occur after a few hundred years. Buildings would crumble after a time. Natural inhabitants of given areas would eventually spread back out and re-populate. Climates would gradually shift back to within normal ranges without human influence.

 

As far as which animals would dominate the landscapes, well, the same ones that dominate them now wherever we are not present. Big cats, birds of prey, wild dogs, sharks, dolphins, killer whales; anything that is considered an apex predator would continue to be. Their hunting zones would, of course, widen. In other words, the whole ecosystem would just eventually set everything back the way it was. I'm no hippie or anything, but hell, if I didn't have to live here, some of the above would be pretty cool to watch.

 

The superior predators listed above would still not, however, contend with each other for world domination. That's a human idea. Perhaps one of the species would eventually get to that point. Maybe. But I suspect one could sit in a cave somewhere and watch diamonds form in the amount of time that would take to happen. Just my two cents.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Karasuman

[Keanumoreira]

As you said, they are no smarter than a human toddler...however...toddlers are still human. There's your proof.

I think you experienced a logic fail, as the meaning of the phrase "chimpanzee's are less intelligent than human toddlers" does not equal "chimpanzee's are as smart as human toddler's" which is what you seem to be saying.

 

 

M'kay, the meaning of the phrase "they are no smarter than" means just as smart as but cannot proceed. I did not say that they are less smarter than a chimpanzee, so, to set the reins straight as I can cleary see where this is going, I'll put it in the simplest way I possibily can. Chimpanzees are as smart as a toddler according to your word choice. To say that I experienced a logical fail based on what you said is not a reasonable conclusion.

 

 

 

And claiming that there one of the known species of animals will just spontaneously (don't bother saying "I know it won't be instantly", we're talking at least a few hundred thousand years before any current species other than humans reaches an intelligence sophisticated enough to form a civilization) form a civilization is pseudo-science.

 

 

Ok, this is the last time i'm going to say this: They won't form a civilization right away.

 

The fact that your saying that you aknowledge they won't do it instantly, and the fact that this is the third time I said it, yet you are still claiming I think they will spontaniously form a civilization makes no sense. I know they won't form one instantly; the process takes millions of years to even begin the process. I'm well aware of how it begins, as does everyone else here.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Keanumoreira

[GetOutOfBox]

 

M'kay, the meaning of the phrase "they are no smarter than" means just as smart as but cannot proceed. I did not say that they are less smarter than a chimpanzee, so, to set the reins straight as I can cleary see where this is going, I'll put it in the simplest way I possibily can. Chimpanzees are as smart as a toddler according to your word choice. To say that I experienced a logical fail based on what you said is not a reasonable conclusion.

 

"No smarter than" means they are either as smart or less smart. It does not just mean "just as smart", it could, but you assumed that's what I meant, which I clearly explained later I didn't.

 

Ok, this is the last time i'm going to say this: They won't form a civilization right away.

 

The fact that your saying that you aknowledge they won't do it instantly, and the fact that this is the third time I said it, yet you are still claiming I think they will spontaneously form a civilization makes no sense. I know they won't form one instantly; the process takes millions of years to even begin the process. I'm well aware of how it begins, as does everyone else here.

 

What you're failing to grasp is that the evolution involved in a race eventually forming, say, a civilization, is not a species just getting stronger and smarter, its a species branching off to form new species. If, for example, wolves eventually formed a civilization (or more appropriately the descendants of wolves) the resulting species would be much different than the wolves we know of today.

 

The other issue is that you are making the assumption that evolution has an ultimate goal (i.e sentience) that all species are heading towards, some faster than others. This is not true, as evolution is simply the process in which a race adapts to its environment (alternatively sometimes various random genetic mutations over time can produce a new species). If an equilibrium already exists in that environment, its unlikely that a member of that ecozone will evolve to possess a higher degree of intelligence or strength. Humans amazingly sophisticated intelligence is likely a result of both natural evolution and variou genetic mutations over time. So, it's not only incorrect to say that millions of years from now wolves will form a civilization, as whatever descendants of wolves that do form that civilization would be a different species. It's also very rare for a species as highly intelligent as humans to form (as demonstrated by the fact that there are only a few species possessing both sophisticated intelligence and sentience, with humans very much farther ahead than the others), so its unlikely that a race that show's no sign of evolving in the way you're proposing would ever become intelligent enough to create a civilization later.

 

TL;DR: You're seeing order where there is only chaos.

Edited December 18, 2010 by GetOutOfBox