The Fallacy of Human Superiority

 I do believe that no matter how radical or critical a philosophy is of the homo sapiens, all philosophies and philosophers begin with the assumption of human superiority.  I believe that is wrong!  To start with, the assumption of human superiority is not only starting with a wrong, or at the least an unsubstantiated, first premise but it skews any logic to follow. Perhaps this is the downfall of all philosophies, because you can not reach a valid conclusion with an erroneous premise.

      My first premise in any essay or dialectic is that homo sapiens are not superior, just different. 

     The problem we have with even talking about this issue is that we base our definitions, and hence our conclusions, on ourselves.  We make ourselves the criteria for superiority. How can we fail?  When challenged, the proponents of human superiority can only turn to religion or the fact that we have a more complex brain. Those are not conclusive. In fact, religion is not even grounded in fact, and the fact that we have a more complex brain means just that. It doesn't mean that we are superior to all other species. 

     What if I was a bird?   Can a human fly without an airplane?  Can a human navigate over tremendous distances without a compass, map or navigational equipment? So far, as a bird, I'm superior to humans. 

     What if I was a bear?  Can a human hunt without special equipment?  Is a human strong enough to bring down a moose with his bare hands?  Can a human dig a ground squirrel or glacier lilly root out of the ground with their claws?   Can they navigate without map or compass?  A human on a bicycle can't outrun me.  As a bear, I'd say I'm superior to humans.  

     I can obviously go on through all of the animals in the world and come to the same conclusion.  If I use myself as the definition of superiority, I'm going to be superior.  

     So what do homo sapiens have that other animals do not have?  We may structurally be the ultimate running animal, but besides the fact that we have, for the most part, given up running, that doesn't make us the fastest runner and therefore not a superior runner. 

     Our brains are rather unique as the newest primate in the evolutionary process. That should make us superior as far as decision-making, analysis, etc.  Sadly, we seem to abuse our most unique quality making us arrogant, destructive and violent.  Nevertheless, in what we might call "brain power" we are superior. Does that make us superior animals?  No. We still can't fly, outrun a bear or navigate long distances without help. 

     If we had not purposely excluded ourselves from nature, I can't help but wonder whether or not we might have become an important part of the balace of nature. As it is, many scientist and other experts have concluded that homo sapiens could disappear from the Earth without being missed.  In fact, after all of the tremendous damage we've done, the Earth would be stronger and healthier without people.  Dr. Yuval Noah Harari (Hebrew: יובל נח הררי‎; born 24 February 1976) is an Israeli historian and a tenured professor in the Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  In his study of human history, Dr. Harari concludes that had homo sapiens not learned to work together and had stayed in their original setting, we would have become extinct long ago. 

     Let's call this brain power edge we have over other animals "intellect".  I know it is hard to believe that most homo sapiens actually have more intellect than other animals, but I do think this is supported by science. Does this make us superior?  

     Homo Sapiens think that intellect makes us superior, but that goes back to using ourselves as the definition of supperiority. That's our strong point and therefore we are likely to use it as our argument for superiority.  

     If you are facing an angry grizzly sow with a cub, you're intellect might keep you from getting killed; viz. being able to figure out how to get away without being attacked. Otherwise you're no match for the bear.  In that scenario they are the superior animal.  

     Now someone is going to say "oh, I'd have a gun with me."  I'd laugh hysterically but I hear it too often.  Unless you gun is the size of a small canon, you're probably just going to make the bear more angry.  Experts have seen it take as many as nine high powered rifle slugs to bring down a bear, and, upon autopsy, it was discovered that most of the slugs did not penetrate the bear's fat. We may be more vicious killers, but we're still not superior. 

     We do have among the best visual clarity in the animal kingdom. That's nice for us but does not make us superior. If you need to see in the dark, you don't want to be human.  I've seen Osprey sitting on a nest almost a quarter of a mile from a lake suddenly take flight and go pull a fish from the water. I've witnessed hawks soaring hundreds of feet above a field and spot a mouse.  We just can't do these things. It doesn't mean that the Osprey and the Hawk are superior animals. Just different. 

     Differences in species does not make one overall superior just superior in that situation. Nature uses these differences as a part of its balance.  How do lions and hyenes hunt in the same area without being in constant conflict? They hunt differently and at different times. How do wolves, mountain lions and coyotes co-exist and hunt in the same areas without being in constant conflict?  Again, different hunting techniques and times. 

     Sit and watch a busy bird feeder. You will soon notice the tremendous variation in the different species of birds.  These differences only make that species superior in a particular situation for which it has developed. It doesn't make that species superior to the others because, most likely, the others don't get into the situations to need  that skill.  

     Animals don't need to tell time so how does our ability to tell time make us superior?It doesn't.  My dog can tell when a storm is coming when it is still a good 100 miles away. I've tested it.  He spent the first part of his life on the streets so that was an important skill.  It doesn't make him superior to me in any other way than some sensory skills that were important to him.  I have noticed that since I became a nomad, spending the majority of my time in the wilderness, I'm actually improving some of my senses which we, as modern homo sapiens, gave up or didn't find as important.   I've purposely learned how to roam around mountain and desert wilderness and return safely home without electronic navagation. It has become important to me. Nevertheless, birds, mountain goats, wolverine, bears, and just about every undomesticated animal is superior to me. That does not make me lesser or inferior as an animal. 

     This essay started with the observation that we deem ourselves superior because we wrote the definition.  I could raise the question as to whether it is even possible to categorize animals in some sort of superioriy ranking.  Being the most dominant doesn't really count.  I don't have time to argue that dominance is a delusion, but consider this. Insects are important pollenators, gabage clean-up, pest control, and an indispensible part of our food chain.  If we actually got rid of all insects it would be tantamont to suicide,  so who is dominant?  

     It is obvious that the argument for human superiority is fallacious. We have a number of unique skills that give us advantage in certain situations, but that's true of all animal species. We are just different than others. It is our arrogance that insists upon assigning superiority, and I believe that arrogance is unique to humans.