As Einstein demonstrated, our perception of the universe is relative to our position.
Many of us, especially the religious, believe that Humans are the superior species on Earth.
That is the view from "above", which is one-half the story.

Recently, I was reminded of a "non-fiction" horror movie that came out in the 70's (Hellstrom Chronicle).
Here are some comments I read in a 2003 public post from "FeverDog" (MadDog's relative?):

"Insects are more equipped to outlive Man in the long run. Insects have a 200-million-year head start, don't have feelings, don't ponder their own existence, don't fight within their species, can adapt to their surroundings, live harmoniously with their environment, have been using 'robots' and the airwaves long before we came to be, and aren't afraid to die. Nothing Man throws at them (like pesticides) can stop their reproduction; insects quickly develop immunities while Man chokes on its own weaponry while polluting its environment. And, it would take Man a million years to repopulate the world after nuclear fallout; insects could do it in weeks."

Perhaps humans created religions to supplement their political strategies for social control and dominance, but that may not be enough to counter the laws of nature that insects live by:
"The Earth was created not with the gentle caress of love, but with the brutal violence of rape."

Not sure if "overpopulating our species" is accurate.  I think we've just been somewhat irresponsible in destroying nature's natural patterns :-)

Speaking of overpopulation, I once had a nightmare where I was covered head-to-toe with ants and other crawling insects, while falling asleep in a beautiful meadow.  Afterward, I changed my perception of the meadow's beauty.

Many of us, especially the religious, believe that Humans are the superior species on Earth.
That is the view from "above", which is one-half the story. [Post #1]

 

As you indicated, one’s judgements and perspectives are relative to one’s own position; an absolute frame of reference or yardstick is not easily found. But some facts to throw into the mix come from this article on the biomass of various species on earth.

 

And of some interest is that humans total about 420 million metric tons, termites at about the same, ants at 900-9000, Antarctic krill at 379, and prokaryotes (bacteria) tipping the scale at a whopping 400,000. So, by that token, the bacteria are the superior species (group) with the ants and fish at about second and third.

 

But the question that really should be asked is, if you had the choice which would you really rather be? A bacterium? An ant or an Antarctic krill? Or a human?

>"Plants and insects have been performing their dances ..."<
------------

You remind me of a book by Elisabet Sahtouris called "EARTHDANCE: Living Systems in Evolution ".
She believes in the "wholistic" Gaia theory, whereby Earth represents a self-regulating complex system.
Why stop at plants and insects?  Animals too ...

>"if you had the choice which would you really rather be?"<
------------

That begs the question: Is quantity better than quality?  Goliath or David?  A smart "small" brain (female) or a stupid "big" brain?
Choice?  Methinks "free will" is overrated as a useful concept.  Ya gotta use what ya got if happiness is a goal  :-)

don't fight within their species

 

      I'll take that bet. You have obviously never watched as ant colonies are invaded and destroyed by another colony of ants. You've never watched as bees attack invading ants or wasps. Also, ants do ranch aphids to fatten up on plant sap then feast on the aphids.

 

      You are not the only one to assert that humans are not the superior species on this planet and you won't be the last. No matter; you're wrong. You've never seen an anthill in the arctic but man is there. Beavers build dams, you think, but the reality is that they just stop the flow of water to build a burrow. Humans build dams for energy, irrigation, and sport.

 

      You are confusing fragility with physical superiority. The Egyptians didn't need spacemen to build the pyramids or the Mesolithic Peruvian's Nasca lines. The Nasca lines were first discovered by Peruvian archeologist Toribio Mejia Xesspe, who spotted them when hiking through the foothills in 1927. Please note that he was walking not flying.

 

       Erich von Däniken and Graham Hancock depend on calling Mesolithic people too stupid to build what they did. They claim that there is no evidence but the methods are carved into the walls of their tombs.

 

      Yes, humans need God for their souls but to build this earthly civilization the human brain will do.

 That begs the question: Is quantity better than quality?  Goliath or David?  A smart "small" brain (female) or a stupid "big" brain? [Post #9]

 

The quantity issue – how many million metric tonnes – was related to the “success” of the species, its dispersal and the frequency of occurrence; my question was related to the opportunities and capabilities of one individual in those different species.

 

And in the latter case it seems to me that one of the distinguishing characteristics of humans is the rather well developed sense of consciousness, of self-awareness, which very few other species seem to exhibit, at least to the same degree; most other species seem to have no more of that attribute than a mechanical pocket watch despite being substantially more complicated than one.

 

In which case my question essentially boils down to whether one wants to be conscious or not. Or, equivalently in my view, whether one wants to be alive or dead.

 

Choice?  Methinks "free will" is overrated as a useful concept.  Ya gotta use what ya got if happiness is a goal  :-)

 

Definitely agree with you about the “free will” issue, generally in any case; seems it is rather imprecise which tends to make discussions of it a little ambiguous. But happiness seems to be practically synonymous with goals – that which we desire to have. Although many seem to find, in some cases anyway, that the pursuit is more of a pleasure that its attainment.

Don't you find this idea of a 'soul' a bit antiquated and ridiculous? 

 

      No, I don't. I believe that the human is both physical and spiritual. The soul is the spiritual part. As a scientist I'll stand with Thomas and probe those nail holes in His hands and shove my hand into His side. Christ is our laboratory. The religions on this planet need to grow up. There is no problem with Christianity. The problem is religion.

 

      Christianity is a rare school. A school in which the students test the teacher.

I seriously doubt that he would wait for over four billion years of evolution just so that we, the human animal... could finally evolve enough gray matter to worship it. 

 

      But, if it were less time; less than 13.6 billion years, then God would be too easily revealed. As for the time necessary, you need to consider Sextus Empiricus ,"... the mills of God grind slowly but exceedingly fine ..."

 

      Consider that after those 13.6 billion years that we are not done yet. What will we know, where will we be, or what will we be in another 4.6 billion years?

I would call that a much greater 'sin', than rejecting gods

 

      So would I. The US constitution was written by people who would agree.

And still...the whole thing doesn't sound ridiculous to you?...

 

      No, it sounds ridiculous to you. God is outside of time; no thumbs, no wrist, therefore no wrist watch.