[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 19 KB, 300x309, Rage1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272393 No.2272393 [Reply] [Original]

>See a question on yahoo answers asking why humans evolved to be smarter than any other animal
>Some people are actually saying that we aren't, we just think we are.

Just how retarded do you have to be to think that. They can't realise that any animal is a complete fucking retard compared to any human. I'm mad. Fuck animals.

>> No.2272401

>>2272393
I agree with OP.

Fuck dolphins, fuck dogs, fuck elephants. They ain't shit to us.

>> No.2272415

>>2272393
how can one be so ignorant?
OP makes me rage inside.
there are also animals who use advanced technologies, but their laboratories are secret.

>> No.2272418

Modern western civilization has lost all perspective. We really need about 10 years of anarchy to bring us back to reality.

>> No.2272424

>>2272401

Dolphins, despite being closer to human intellect than chimps, haven't developed cities, economies or any real technology for the simple reason that they swim around nude in warm tropical waters surrounded by other nude dolphins all day every day.

This is what human beings work their entire lives to achieve.

>> No.2272434

>>2272424
I would agree if dolphins have developed beer or something. Is there a dolphin party drug?

>> No.2272435

>>2272418

And we'll still be smarter than animals. Even Somalians are.

u mad zoophile?

>> No.2272436

Other animals arent as smart as us in ways that we consider smart.

Honestly I would rather be a dolphin than a human. Dolphins have a more carefree life than humans do.

>> No.2272438

>>2272424

Sounds boring as fuck. Just accept that they're retarded.

>> No.2272470

>>2272434

>>I would agree if dolphins have developed beer or something. Is there a dolphin party drug?

They do engage in gang rape, and they kill manatees for no reason other than entertainment.

A dolphin 'party' consists of taking turns raping a female and then nose-punching a manatee to death because it looks like a lumpy retard dolphin.

>> No.2272480

>>2272434

>>Is there a dolphin party drug?

Not that I know of, although other animals have been known to seek out fermented fruit because it has an intoxicating effect.

Watch this, though; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

That's a very sophisticated play behavior. It's not play fighting as seen in other animals, it serves no purpose, doesn't prepare the dolphin for anything later in life. It's pure skill and amusement.

>> No.2272493

>>2272480

I could play with a fucking hoop if i wanted. It doesn't make them smarter than us.

>> No.2272494

dolphins are eating to much mercury from the fish they eat thats why they are not evloving like they should be

>> No.2272502

>>2272493

>>I could play with a fucking hoop if i wanted.

Don't trivialize it. They're *making* the hoop from exhaled air, then splitting it into smaller hoops which are then deliberately expanded. That's fascinating stuff and if you disagree you're on the wrong board.

>>It doesn't make them smarter than us.

Point out where I claimed they're smarter than us. You can't, because I didn't.

>> No.2272506

>>2272470
>nose-punching a manatee to death because it looks like a lumpy retard dolphin.
>lumpy retard dolphin
I laughed hard

>> No.2272507

What the fuck, man.

It is unbelievably arrogant of human beings to classify itself as "better" or "more intelligent".

Who are we to call ourselves intelligent?

The only thing humans have, anyway, is that intelligent. We have shit vision, shit hearing, we're not very mobile, we are extremely set out for diseases, we're destroying our very own habitat, we kill each other for nothing.

All in all, humanity serves no good to anyone. Not even ourselves.

>> No.2272509

>>2272494
Fuck them, they had their chance to build a civilization.

>> No.2272513

Most of our accomplishments come from the fact that we are at our core social creatures with highly dextrous hands. The reason we were able to make the developments we are able to make is mainly because as we advanced in technology one person could provide food for many more others.

Now, according to neurologists our brains are also much more advanced than any other species, which is true. But there are other factors at work, and it would be interesting to see what dolphins could do with prosthetic hands and feet, artificial ambition, and 40,000 years.

>> No.2272516

Mice are creators of this planet (planet-based computer). In fact, they had whole business of making planets while galaxy was still rich.

>> No.2272517

>>2272507
>All in all, humanity serves no good to anyone. Not even ourselves.
Interesting. You believe there is a standard of "good" that isn't based on human interests? What is it?

>> No.2272522

>>2272513
I don't believe dolphins have the brainpower. It would take more than 40,000 years to evolve it.

>> No.2272524

people think to highly of themselves.

If 'intelligence' (as described by the common man)is such a great thing, why did it evolve only once on this globe?

>> No.2272528

>>2272507

>i like sucking dolphin cock

Okay bro, doesn't mean the rest of us should too.

>> No.2272533

>>2272524
Easy. The first social species to hit a critical mass (in both individual and societal intelligence/complexity) became dominant. We wiped out the other humanoids, and no one else was even competition.

>> No.2272535

Reminds me of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeqWF1gkQS4

>> No.2272537

>>2272507

Oh, by the way, Neil deGrasse Tyson had an interesting talk about human intelligence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-uZZ7RdL5E

5 minutes, worth it.

>> No.2272538

When you consider that in life the bottom line purpose is to survive and replicate, which other animals seem to be succeeding at, are humans really that much better than other animals?

If one day we end up destroying our own race with a nuke using our "intelligence", then we are an evolutionary failure. Also, take modern civilization away from modern man and see how well he copes. Humans are really quite fragile things.

>> No.2272540

>>2272524
Because there is only room for one intelligence, so to speak.
Neanderthals for example, were pretty smart in ways we can appreciate. Then we fucking destroyed their asses.

>> No.2272541
File: 33 KB, 432x360, delphis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272541

>>2272522

>>I don't believe dolphins have the brainpower.

They score between 85-90 on touchscreen, image based intelligence tests. Pic related. Obviously we can't make an apples to apples comparison because the test differs so much by necessity but it's pretty obvious they're the brightest non-human animal on the planet.

>> No.2272543

>>2272533
>The first social species to hit a critical mass
ants, termites

>> No.2272545

>>2272538
We are the planet's only hope for reproduction (spreading life to other planets).

>> No.2272548
File: 56 KB, 333x500, Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272548

>>2272537

Everyone ITT, check this out.

>> No.2272554

>>2272393
OP, Your retarded

>> No.2272556

>>2272522
That could very well be true. The conclusion could depend on who you ask, though. I bet if you asked a sociologist they might say you'd just need to change a dolphin's goalset and offer them a means of sophisticated communication. If you asked a neurologist he'd say you'd have to change the brain.

It's reasons like this that I'm waiting on quantum computing with bated breath. Think of how awesome it would be to be able to simulate a whole world.

>> No.2272557

>>2272516
It's not the mice that built the planets, but the inhabitants of Magrathea
lrn2hitchikersguidetothegalaxy

>> No.2272558

>>2272538
>Also, take modern civilization away from modern man and see how well he copes. Humans are really quite fragile things.

Humans do just fine actually. They're the apex predators in every environment. Look at isolated amazonian tribes or aboriginals. They have no complex civilization and they do just fine.

>> No.2272560

>>2272543
>ants, termites
... clearly have not hit the critical mass in societal complexity needed for dominance. They're omnipresent though, so there's that.

There is one supercolony that spans continents, where individuals from those colonies won't hurt each other. And that's awesome. But ants aren't going to be colonizing other planets anytime soon.

>> No.2272564

>>2272541
So they're on par with/ more intelligent than niggers

>> No.2272565

some believe that dolphins are secretly super-intelligent creatures that lay low in the oceans of our planet. maybe they're waiting for us to annihilate ourselves so that they can colonize the Earth.
i bet they already have secret cities underground where they study math, science, and philosophize about the nature of life and the universe. why aren't we funding excavation projects to discover these cities?

>> No.2272571

>>2272541
If they're nearly acing the test, and humans ace it, then it doesn't tell us anything about the gap. You'd need a test that humans DON'T ace, but dolphins still register on. Has that been done?

>> No.2272576

>>2272565
Because that's a stupid idea and you're retarded.

Dolphins wouldn't be caught in tuna fishing nets and rounded up and slaughtered by the Japanese on a regular basis if this were true.

>> No.2272577

>>2272537

A very interesting thought indeed.

Tyson is a really, really great speaker.

>> No.2272578

>>2272537
>Astrophysicist talking about biology
Nope.jpg

His argument falls flat because it's gene regulation that winds up creating the big differences between species. Just because humans and chimps share 99% of our genes doesn't mean that all 99% of those genes are active. Hell, humans share half our genes with fucking bananas.

>> No.2272580

>>2272524
I think a better answer than the previously provided ones is that an intelligent species "evolves" faster than a species evolves to become intelligent.

It might take 10 million years for dolphins to evolve in such a way that they can maintain a sophisticated civilization. It might take 20 years for our civilization to wipe out all the dolphins as a bi product of some bright idea we have.

The chances of two completely different species reaching the point of intelligence where no further mutations are required to get to the point where we are right now at the same time are astronomical. The chances of one intelligent species significantly disrupting the ecosystem world wide inside of 40,000 years, not so much.

>> No.2272592

>>2272571

Not to my knowledge. The test establishes only that dolphins are extraordinarily bright. The same kinds of imagery based intelligence tests have been given to chimps and they score well below what would qualify for mental retardation in human beings.

Dolphins can be thought of as our "what if" sister species in the ocean. The path we might've gone down had we returned to the ocean. They're a bit dimmer and better natured overall (perhaps the two are related) but nonetheless brighter than chimps and second only to humans.

>> No.2272593

>>2272571
Primates have a vastly superior memory, maybe dolphins also do

>> No.2272597

>>2272580
I agree. Once biological evolution (very slow) produces an intelligence species, then you wait for an advanced society (thousands of years, max) and then it's off to the races, with cultural and technological advances measured in centuries, then decades, then years.

If we start tinkering with genetic engineering...
I don't buy the cultish "singularity" stuff, but there's something to be said for the accelerating pace of development.

>> No.2272599

>>2272558
This. The dexterity of the human hand encourages man to manipulate his environment. The instinct of the homo sapien is to band together against the wild. Significantly dangerous predators only exist in areas with abundant resources for man to use. Man would thrive anywhere that mammals do, as was demonstrated over the course of history.

>> No.2272602

>>2272558

I accept that SOME humans would do just fine if you you were pushed out of modern society. Darwinism in action. We have hardwired in us exactly what to do in such situations.

I just see a large majority of people that are too comfortable with today's world just giving up or panicking or something and and dying.

I don't think we're the apex predator in any environment either. You put a human against a tiger and I'd wager the tiger would win.

>> No.2272607

>>2272592
One general theory of intelligence says their lack of thumbs (dexterous manipulation ability) doomed the dolphins from ever achieving what we have.

If we GIVE them thumbs, after a fashion, that might eventually change. Also, there's no fire underwater (generally), and that makes a lot of material technology difficult. You might be able to do ranching/agriculture though (which dolphins don't seem to do).

>> No.2272622

>>2272602
>I don't think we're the apex predator in any environment either. You put a human against a tiger and I'd wager the tiger would win.
True, and irrelevant. You might as well be pitching a single ant against a non-social species.

The largest benefit is not from *invidiual* human intelligence, but from the compounded *group intelligence* this allows in society. Very few people know how to accomplish a lot - we specialize in doing one thing, and then as a whole we're all really, really powerful.

If there was ever a time when our ancestors weren't social, they also weren't very powerful.

>> No.2272625

>>2272602
Evolution, not darwinism

>> No.2272626

>>2272602

Depends on the conditions. If you put them both naked into an empty ring then the tiger would win of course. But put them both into a a 100km squared area full of forest the human will most likely have crafted a spear or trap and have at least a chance of surviving when they find each other.

>> No.2272627

>>2272541
People with autism who happen to also be savants can do wildly well on IQ tests. However, take 1000 savants and put them in the jungle against the wild and I doubt they ever develop civilization.

Civilization is the product of social instinct and cognitive ability. Without one the other is useless. As I understand it, when dolphins aren't eating or hunting they are playing. They would need to have the drive to improve their "tribe's" % of survival in their free time to develop a society.

>> No.2272632

>>2272627
Play is social. And they DO help each other accomplish tasks.

>> No.2272634
File: 43 KB, 194x249, ryuzaki .......png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272634

For some reason there has been a big "hurrdurr animals rights campaign" from the liberals over the past few years. I think it's derivative of global warming and the like. Not that those aren't real issues, but the bottom line is that the leftist agenda is noteworthy but has a faggy fanbase.

Just ignore the hippy fagz and move on with your scientific research anons.

>> No.2272640

apex my ass...

drop a human buck naked and unequipped on a random spot on the earth and i am quite certain they would be dead inside of 4 hours and guaranteed dead by 20 days.

Most likely drowned. Likely Eaten. Less likely to die of simple exposure or starvation.

we ain't shit.

>> No.2272641

>>2272634
Yeah. My general position is that environmental conservation is a good idea because it's good for human interests. The diversity and stability of the ecosystem are in our best interests.

But when if push comes to shove, in some unforeseen extreme circumstance? We would eat the dolphins. Or destroy their habitat to save ours. Absolutely.

>> No.2272644

>>2272640
That doesn't make any fucking sense.
What are you, 12?

>> No.2272658
File: 132 KB, 450x373, wentfullretard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272658

>>2272640
I think that would happen with nearly every animal. Take a polar bear and put it in the Mojave. Take a coyote and put it in the rain forest. Same shit.

Also mfw you dont acknowledge that humans are apex predators.

>> No.2272661

>>2272640
so the prosperity of a given civilization is derived from how likely one of them can survive completely naked when flung randomly into their home planet?

>> No.2272665

>>2272640
*sigh*
You might as well be bragging about how tigers ain't shit if they're blind and have two legs, or how a single ant can't accomplish much. Humans are social animals. No species exists as an isolated individual (for very long).
>>2272622

We've already done a field test (natural selection in recent history), and social animals win (us, ants, etc). We like to romanticize the asocial ones because they are impressive individually (they have to be), and we value individual ability as useful to the group, so that spreads to how we feel about other animals as well. But as a species? There's a reason that large asocial predators are declining or going extinct (unless we step in).

>> No.2272672

Once I took a cruise. And at one of the islands there was a dolphin swimming class. I missed out on that so a few years later I went boating near Tampa. And saw a few dolphins, but everytime I stopped the boat and jumped into the water the dolphins, swam away.

>> No.2272679

>>2272658
>>2272644
>>2272661

Take a penguin and dump it in africa

>> No.2272682

>>2272632
Right. And maybe with the ability to manipulate objects with dexterity they would turn to tools to help society.

Now that I think of it, spontaneity (which dolphins no doubt have more than enough of) in conjunction with cognitive ability (which dolphin's may have enough of) gives rise to ideas. If a dolphin could maintain a single line of thinking long enough to connect what they were doing with their sense of duty to their "tribe", assuming they have one, they might be able to work together to develop technology to further their advancement as a society.

I think it may also be important, though, to have instinctively designated roles in a society, e.g. women are caretakers, men are hunters. I think this might be the first step in the process of the delegation of tasks, which is crucial for a society to thrive.

Do dolphins hunt for their mates? Does a mama dolphin protect the young one while the male looks for food? I'm not sure that a being, no matter how intelligent, can reach those kinds of roles without some kind of instinctual drive.

>> No.2272683

>>2272672
It's just that you gave off a weird dolphin-molester vibe. Nothing personal.

Oh wait, yes, that is personal.

>> No.2272688

>>2272644
Yes. I'm 12. My generation is in charge of picking your nursing home. What of it?
You don't want us to be stupid when the time comes, now do you?
Best to teach me now, I'd think.


what doesn't make sense to you?

2/3rds the planet is covered in ocean.
Randomly drop you somewhere...
How is your 'intelligence' gonna help you survive?

>> No.2272696

>>2272682
I don't know, but it does seem that specialization is essential to civilization. I don't know if there's any evidence of specializiation, cooperative or not, in dolphins - like one that's good at hunting a specific food source, possibly trading with others. But I'd love to hear about it.

>> No.2272697

>>2272688
lol didn't read after first few words, disregarding further posts from this anon

>> No.2272707 [DELETED] 

You're a pretty good troll I'll give you that.

>> No.2272720

>>2272658
I think there are more fitting examples to get the point across.

Take a male and female piranha and drop them in a body of water without any other piranhas. Take two penguins and put them on the north pole. Take two water buffalo and drop them in a predatory environment without other water buffalo around.

In the case of the last two, they only survive against predators and the elements through group cooperation. In order to not freeze to death in a particularly strong storm, penguins must form a ring and rotate who stands on the outside. In order to not get eaten by lions, water buffalo group up and charge them away. There's a reason why lions only go for weak and slow buffalo.

Piranhas only feed as a pack. They suck as predators alone, and they'd die. Social creatures are what they are because it works, and it shouldn't be counted against them.

>> No.2272729

>>2272683
Strange, most mammals love hanging out with me. The dolphins did keep swimming back, so maybe they were just messing with me.

>> No.2272736

>>2272696
Right. And I think without the instinct to specialize in some way, dolphins would have to be EXTREMELY logical to reach the conclusion that they should delegate tasks such as agriculture and the building of shelters to advance.

But this is 100% conjecture on my part. I'm neither a marine biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, neurologist, or psychologist.

>> No.2272737

>>2272729
They might be mostly wild, depending on how much contact they've had with humans. But they're also naturally curious. Sounds about right.

>> No.2272738

> 2/3rds the planet is covered in ocean.
>Randomly drop you somewhere...
>How is your 'intelligence' gonna help you survive?


Hurr.... 99% of the universe is empty space. Let's drop you randomly somewhere and see how your trolling ability helps you survive there.

>> No.2272742

>>2272738
>Hurr.... 99% of the universe is empty space. Let's drop you randomly somewhere and see how your trolling ability helps you survive there.
I chortled.

>> No.2272748

>>2272688
If you're trying to establish that intelligence is inferior to natural weapons for reaching the top of the food chain, you're arguing against 40,000 years of human development that proves you wrong.

>> No.2272756

>>2272736
If they have a capacity to learn by example, just one enterprising dolphin could be enough to spread a specialized "technological" behavior.

The problem in chimpanzees is that, although they learn by example, they don't seem to *teach* each other. Novel tool-using tasks come and go as they are discovered, propagated a few times, and then forgotten again.

Also, young human children have more tendency to follow example exactly (expecting to be taught) than just observe and extract bits deemed useful (chimpanzees). Strange, but it seems to make a difference.
http://www.hellofelix.com/childhood-social-learning/overimitation/when-are-chimps-smarter-than-kids..
html

>> No.2272775

>>2272688
>>2272640
>I'm 12 and what is this?

Sorry bro, but many many humans could do just fine in that situation. Plus, we're talking about intelligence, not whether you could beat a bear in a fight.

>> No.2272777

>>2272756
Monkey see, monkey do vs monkey pay attention? (replace monkey with ape if it makes you angry)

A simple google search of "dolphin teaching" brings up a good amount of articles. Whether they do it in a way that could propagate the use of technology is up for debate I suppose.

I think this one is a test for future simulations done by quantum computers. Hope they come soon.

>> No.2272778

>>2272775
He's arguing that intelligence isn't valuable.

I smell sour grapes.

>> No.2272780

>>2272777
The funny thing is that "toddler see, toddler do" is more literally applicable than "monkey see, monkey do". That's the point.

>> No.2272784

>>2272777
I am very, very skeptical of the possibility of embedding a simulation of a region of spacetime that is faster and/or smaller than the real space it is embedded in.

Overhead will make those expensive and slow, even with quantum computing. Unless you can make shortcuts in the modeling.

>> No.2272787

>>2272470
So your average human frat party, adjusted for species, right?

>> No.2272788

>>2272784
>faster and/or larger
fixed.

tl;dr simulations are larger, slower and more expensive than the real thing.

>> No.2272790

>>2272787
Pretty much. Which says a lot about frat boys - and dolphins.

>> No.2272791

>>2272780
Right, I actually read the page from beginning to end after I submitted that post. That's awesome.

I read an article somewhere that children don't question the source or validity of evidence that's presented to them until about 8 or 9. In other words, tell them santa exists and they'll believe you, or they'll ask how you know and you can say "because the stockings fill up on christmas".

I think children have a tendency to accept ideas and methods presented to them without questioning them until a certain age. If young chimps accept ideas and methods only insofar as they see that they are useful, does that say something about mindless imitation at a young age being evolutionarily preferable?

Very interesting, thanks for the link.

>> No.2272793
File: 60 KB, 602x432, petasucks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272793

As far as abstract thought and language goes we're the best, in terms of memory, spatial cognition and various buzzwords behavioural psychologists come up with there is always an animal somewhere that specializes it and surpasses us.

>> No.2272797

>>2272791
>does that say something about mindless imitation at a young age being evolutionarily preferable
I'd think so. Until you have the capacity to understand what's going on, it's better to just go with the flow. A toddler that thought he knew better constantly instead of following cues from adults would put himself in world of hurt in many human situations. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, don't have any complex environment to acclimate to. Just the social environment.

>> No.2272800

>>2272788
Admittedly I don't understand quantum computing at a basic level. I don't know whether it would allow for the storage of all the information about an area in space in a smaller area than that.

What I understand about quantum computing, though, is that if they can get it to work it will make computers into magic.

>> No.2272801

>>2272793
We're obviously the dominant species (no, really), and it's obviously because of our intelligence and social cooperation. Going into the mechanics of how exactly that works is less clear.

>> No.2272808

>>2272756
That's bullshit. They teach each other often, the problem is that they seem to stop learning when they are 3

>> No.2272809

>>2272800
>What I understand about quantum computing, though, is that if they can get it to work it will make computers into magic.
Stop thinking that. Please. At least go read a wikipedia article. Only certain classes of mathematical problems have possible speedups.

As for information density - think about. How many atoms does it take to store all the information of an atom itself? Position, electronic configuration, etc.

Your only hope is to find massive shortcuts, like when you have a simple model for the gas instead of tracking all the atoms.

>> No.2272811

>>2272797
A good analysis I think. Until the frontal lobe is fully developed and the child has experience to draw from, the child should do exactly as the adults tell him to prevent harm coming to them in a way they couldn't foresee.

Spot on.

>> No.2272814

>>2272801
Under what criteria are we the dominant species?

>> No.2272815

>>2272808
>They teach each other often
Is that true? Chimpanzee children learn from their mothers, but is it just observing, or is the mother actively teaching? For instance, chimpanzees don't understand the pointing gesture. There's no "I want to you to pay attention to this thing" gesture. Vocal predator warnings, etc., but no "pointing", no "watch this", no teaching.

I'm willing to be wrong about this though.

>> No.2272821

>>2272809
But I want to belieeeeeeve!

Ok, I see your point. You're saying I'll have to wait until they get time travel figured out to get the thousands of yottabytes of storage for a world simulation.

>> No.2272823

>>2272814
A fairly starkly brutal and pragmatic one - we can wipe out local populations, and even entire species, of just about anything, just about anywhere and whenever we want.

"Dominance", unfortunately, generally implies the power to destroy. Doesn't mean we ARE destructive or inherently abusive (we are sometimes) - it just means we have the power.

>> No.2272828

>>2272821
>You're saying I'll have to wait until they get time travel figured out to get the thousands of yottabytes of storage for a world simulation.
Unless you find ways to simplify the model. Exactly. That said...
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/12/29/0621237/Living-Earth-Simulator-Aims-To-Simulate-Everythin
g

>> No.2272831

>>2272814
On a whim we could annihilate 99% of complex land dwelling life on the face of the earth through the detonation of all of our nuclear armaments.

Any single complex life form we come in contact with can be killed at our command. Sounds pretty dominant.

>> No.2272836

>>2272831
That really depends on how narrow your definition of "complex" is. We would find it very difficult to wipe out cockroaches, for instance.

>> No.2272845

>>2272836
True. And we actually have some grudging respect for things we have a hard time destroying, probably on the same basis.

But cockroaches aren't going to be wiping *us* out anytime soon, so it's hardly a relationship of equals.

>> No.2272857

WHAT HAVE WE BECOME

MY SWEETEST FRIEND
EVERYONE I KNOW

GOES AWAY
IN THE END.

AND YOU COULD HAVE IT ALL


MY EMPIRE OF DIRT

I WILL LET YOU DOWN


I WILL MAKE YOU HURT.

>> No.2272863

>>2272836
Duly noted. The mass extinction of cockroaches would be extremely difficult at this time. The next foreseeable milestone to me where we could kill nearly every cockroach on the planet would have to be when and if we could make a virus that specifically targets cockroaches and interferes with their ability to mate or something.

Still, I don't think cockroaches are threatening to usurp our throne.

>> No.2272867

>>2272863
Well, if we manage to kill of each other with nuclear holocaust, insects will inherit the earth.

>> No.2272871

>>2272857
I love that song. Something very strangely compelling about the lyrics and how he sings them.

>> No.2272882

>>Just how retarded do you have to be to think that. They can't realise that any animal is a complete fucking retard compared to any human. I'm mad. Fuck animals.

No thinking required, eh?

>> No.2272884

>>2272867
True, which notes some of the differences between the concepts of intelligence and wisdom. But we haven't done it for decades now, despite even the tensions of the Cold War, and that gives me a lot of hope for humanity.

Besides, I don't know if nuclear war could wipe out the human species. Modern civilization, quite possibly, if we tried. Also, we couldn't sterilize the planet of all life, even if we dedicated decades of effort to the preparation. Maybe a hundred years from now we'd have enough power.

>> No.2272886

>>2272863
(samefagging)
Then again, any species that can maintain coverage of almost all of the world despite our interference with more staying power than we have is pretty successful. Evolutionarily speaking, where the "goal" is to propagate as much as possible for as long as possible, cockroaches have us beat.

That doesn't make them higher up on the food chain, but the species with the most evolutionary success isn't necessarily the apex predator. Unless something actually destroys the earth in the literal sense, cockroaches will outlive us as a species.

>> No.2272895

>>2272886
>Evolutionarily speaking, where the "goal" is to propagate as much as possible for as long as possible, cockroaches have us beat.
Not once we colonize Mars. Then not even planet-destroying apocalypses would wipe us out (or at least one of them, anyway).

Roaches? Not so much. Unless we bring them with us. That makes the species that are symbiotic (or at least benignly parasitic) to humans fairly interesting.

>> No.2272899

>>2272886
We just need to build high-powered laser-armed "Cockroach Hunter" drones which can get into all of the places cockroaches can and subsequently annihilate them.

>> No.2272911

>>2272895
Terraforming Mars is no easy task. We might never have the capacity. Ironically, one of the greatest difficulties involved in living on Mars, the exposure to radiation, is not a problem for cockroaches.

>> No.2272913

>>2272884
You'd have to be very methodical with the aiming of all the world's armaments to cover all of the land on the earth. If I recall correctly, though, I read a "fact" that you could "blow up the world" 50 times over with the current supply of warheads. I doubt that's the immediate blast radius, though.

Even if we did manage to wipe out everything on land, we'd start again from lichens until there was enough plant life to warrant a species in the water coming onto land. It wouldn't exactly be starting from scratch, because there would still be a lot of sea life, so it shouldn't take as long.

Tl;Dr: We can't fuck up a perfectly good planet enough to stop another intelligent species from possibly evolving after our untimely demise.

>> No.2272916
File: 7 KB, 316x283, 9pzup7wf6m83qb32i1lr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272916

>>2272911

>> No.2272917

>>2272913
>, I read a "fact" that you could "blow up the world" 50 times over with the current supply of warheads. I doubt that's the immediate blast radius, though.
Your skepticism is well-placed. That's fearmongering bullshit.

>> No.2272921

>>2272911
>>2272916
Yeah.... cockroaches aren't as radiation-hardy as urban legend proclaims. Also, mice much prefer peanut butter to cheese.

>> No.2272926

and a virus or two that have been around before we even existed

>> No.2272927

>>2272899
Actually, you're about right. Even viruses wouldn't totally wipe out all pockets of roaches - you need something else to actively infiltrate and fill their niche, with the option of leaving it later (designer species/robots).

>> No.2272930

>>2272899
Human Courier: 195 Human nations descend upon you! Our cockroach hunting drones will blot out the sun!

Cockroach Leader: THEN WE WILL SCURRY IN THE SHADE!

>> No.2272934

>>2272921
They can survive at least 10 times the lethal dose of humans. I'm not sure what the situation is like on Mars, but there are insects that can survive 100s of times the lethal dose for humans.

>> No.2272937

>>2272927
Or a bacteria that eats garbage and kills roaches when it finds them. But that sounds worse than roaches unless it has a kill-switch or built-in extinction.

>> No.2272942

>>2272930
LOL
I love the extra reference to scurrying in the dark.

>> No.2272944

>>2272921
that makes sense i guess...

mice didn't spend a few thousand years developing a taste for fermented mammal milk...

that's like saying something you were looking for was in the last place you looked in a sour tone.

Of course it was. Why would you keep looking if you already found it?

>> No.2272963

>>2272917
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/do-we-really-need-to-blow_b_491367.html
Here's an example. Unsourced. Couldn't find any credible source, and it's not in any kind of context (nuclear fallout radius, "buildings fall down" radius, "enough heat to kill any living thing" radius).

If I had to guess, I'd say that they used the radius of nuclear fallout, which at least some species would survive. I'll try to get this little "fact" out of my head.

>> No.2272978

>>2272921
Right. And the other thing that's good about peanut butter as bait or a reward for mice is the smell. Smelling peanut butter from very far away isn't an issue.

>> No.2273862

>>2272963
>low-IQ Republican scare-mongers
>reference to nuclear "Muslim-buster" warheads
>suggests "a dozen or so" missiles is enough
Yeah, this source sounds totally legit and not REMOTELY likely to make up bullshit numbers.