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.
Ya think?????????? Gee, let me watch yet again the various Planet of the Apes movies, and Jaws for sure.
Unhappily Hollywood is really not a place where realism overtakes rabid imagination.
But we do have those highly evolved brains which are rapidly rendering our bodies less and less useful!
Still, we could learn a lot from our shark and ant brethren!
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.
As soon as I see a squirrel driving a Ferrari, I'll be more than happy to claim that I'm POSSIBLY not superior to another animal.
And this notion of "the highest" and "the superior" doesn't really correlate with the theory of evolution.
All that evolution has to say about the subject is that humans have been able to reproduce and survive long enough to reproduce again.
As soon as that statement becomes false, we'll be history.
"As soon as I see a squirrel driving a Ferrari, I'll be more than happy to claim that I'm POSSIBLY not superior to another animal."
Anything else, Evan?
Very interesting photo. That squirrel must be raking it in at the stock market.
Nah - he probably gets it selling bear skins from his hunting trips.
Are you saying the squirrel is packing? I thought the Constitution only allowed you to keep and arm bears...
Regardless, the squirrel is not subject to the constitution........just thought you might want to be reminded of that.
I do love squirrels, ever rescued and bottle fed a baby one and prepared it for life in the wild??
Yes. Bears already have arms, and you can't keep them unless they dance.
that's pretty close, but not a ferrari.
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.
They used to let humans compete in the Kentucky Derby, but the horses were at such a disadvantage.
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.
by Vizey 10 years ago
why do many people consider whites as superior and people of other colors inferior?
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit 8 years ago
A Poor Man's TearsLook at me! You can bet I've done a lot of crying in my time, and I'm here to say it always makes me feel better. Laughter has never given me the same depth of release and comfort as a handful of tears. Laughter is a poor man's tears, to coin a phrase ... and so to speak.Famous...
by washington Benard 10 years ago
What is man's biggest enemy?
by IDONO 10 years ago
Does it take less intelligence to survive than it used to?Has technology replaced thinking? Many people can't add or do percentages. Many can't find a book at the library without a computer instead of Dewey Dec. System. Can't cook other than microwave. Get where I'm going here? What do you think?
by Audrey Selig 9 years ago
Is Malwarebytes a superior remover compared to other spyware software, and can it remove a virus?So many threats exist today, making it important to have good protection. It did remove a virus from a computer.
by Chunksofunk 12 years ago
Is it true that most shark attacks take place in less than 6 feet of water?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|