Man, having developed the most complex and integrated cerebral function of all the animate entities on earth , have been given "rule" over those entities by divinely inspired evolutionary process. This is not to say that he is the ultimate "superior" being... on the contrary, he is rather a weakling compared to his nearest so-called genetic relatives, the great apes. Man's and the great ape's bodily design and its mechanics are far inferior to that of the sharks or the ants. So in "Camelotian" terms, the king actually has not clothes. Man's ego alone have carried him this far... and his ego could also terminate his lording it on earth.
I agree, if by less and less you mean the almost universal sedentary lifestyle of the people in the developed countries..... what with their variagated mechanical contraptions that they use at work and at leisure time. In the world of modern Homo Sapiens the inverse relationship between physical activity and mental acuity has the perverse effect of making man less healthy(obesity) and more susceptible to physical devaluation(injuries).
There is something to be said about the lives of our pre-historic progenitors. Theirs was the life of almost constant physical struggle... a major reason why they were able to survive 3(or was it four?) near extinction episodes over the millenia.
Modern man, with his supposed highly evolved brain, may not survive the next episode, because it might be self-inflicted.
I would disagree that man is the weakling you project. For instance, a well trained man in good condition can outrun a horse over the long haul - there are few land animals that can put out the mileage a man can per day.
A man's eyesight is poor compared to an eagle, but good indeed compared to most animals in general.
No animal has the dexterity that a man can produce with his hands, not even the other primates.
We have a tendency to compare our physical characteristics to the best in the animal world, but that isn't really fair. To say that we are physically inferior to a shark is patently untrue - no shark will ever hold a hammer to drive a nail, nor is their vision anywhere near as acute as ours. All animals, including man, have their own strengths and weaknesses.
What I meant to infer with the statement that " man's bodily design and mecahnics is inferior to that of the shark" , is, in the context of the varying proclivities/demands of their respective immediate environment (, Man-land/air; shark-water) man's is definitely inferior to that of the shark. I read somewhere that the shark's basic anatomical structure have not changed a single iota since it made its appearance millions and millions of years ago. Which means, the shark's body in the water is much more adjusted to the needs and demands of the water, and has therefore not found n any evolutionary reason to change.
It is hard to tell with sharks as they have no bony skeleton to fossilize, but there does not seem to be a great deal of major change. On the other hand, humans are still evolving quite rapidly and may do so even more rapidly in the future as they use that brain tool thingie that they have to accelerate the process.
In this respect I would think that you are entirely correct; the shark is better suited to its environment than humans are.
You mean Homo Sapiens evolving to Homo Roboticus? I very scary though from my perspective, but I assume that man will do anything and everything including becoming a soul-less versiomn of his previous soul-ful self.