Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magrus I was, although perhaps not in the way I was expected to do so. My point was that that capability in no way proves superiority in my mind. I'll concede the fact that humans are inherantly capable of processing information at a higher level than other species, however, that makes them different in my eyes, not better. Smarter or not, a tiger could still tear me limb from limb if it wanted to. A squirrel or cat or dog could outrun me. A fish can outswim me, a bird can fly where I am fully unable to do so. Each of these creatures has something they are good at, or multiple things. In fact, every species is capable of doing something which it is better at than all others. |
But that tiger, as a species, now depends in a large measure on humans for its survival. So in the confrontation between specieses it clearly lost out.
And in this hypothetical confrontation between man and tiger you deny man the use of its inherent advantages (being a social, highly intelligent, tool-using species) while the tiger can use its inherent advantages (physical prowess & size). Man will gang up on the tiger and use weapons or other tools (nets) to defeat it. That is what man
is.
And we have tools that can make us go faster than either bird or fish or cat or dog. And tool using is part of what we are as a species.
Just as it is for certain other specieses, like a type of finch that uses a little stick to get insect out of bark: instead of developing a longer finer beak it has developed the use of a tool. Both options are inherent qualities of a species, even if one is not a physical characteristic.