Most likely to succeed

[J.C.MacSwell]

We are currently top dog.

 

What current species lineage is most likely to succeed us here on Earth?

 

Obviously the endangered ones are unlikely, but none are 100.00...% out of contention until they are extinct (and all their DNA squashed)

 

 

Chimps? Gorilla? ...I don't think they will outlast us even if it is our fault not theirs, but maybe they could sneak past a virus that wipes out the rest of us.

 

A lot depends on how we do ourselves in, winning the Darwin award for our species as a whole and leaving who knows what type of vacuum at the top.

 

Rat? Cockroach? ..one or both should survive our Nuclear annihilation

 

Oak? Maple?...woodent think so but there are no wrong answers.

 

Dolphin? Porpoise? I don't sea it.

 

Muskrat? Beaver? Dammed good choice if you can make a good case for them.

 

 

 

Though it's likely some strain of bacteria I don't even know about my vote goes to the raccoon; Cunning little buggers with opposable thumbs (worked for us).

 

We've crowded them out, and yet they're doing better than ever, but the main reason is that I've always liked them so they get my vote.

 

Who, and for what reason, gets your vote for most likely to succeed?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Parrots? Some have shown a decent vocabulary and problem-solving abilities, and I understand they can be rather clever.

[SH3RL0CK]

I don't think humans will become extinct without some kind of mass extinction event (these do occur). Generalists which are able to adapt tend to survive these events the best. This does bode well for humans as they are very adaptable, but assuming not, then I would go with other wide-ranging, adaptable alternative species.

 

My pick would be seagulls which are at home both at sea and on land in many climates and whose diet is quite varied.

[mooeypoo]

My bet is on cocroaches and bacteria...

 

Sheer numbers.

[CaptainPanic]

Squid and/or octopus

1. They seem very smart, and are known to adapt to an environment. They observe, learn and adapt.

2. They have not 2 hands, but 8 tentacles (or 8+2=10? Never really figured it out... it's a blur of tentacles). But as far as I know, they don't use tools... yet.

3. They look like aliens from sci-fi movies, who have warp drives and are generally more advanced than us.

 

Alternatively, I'll go for elephants, for 4 reasons:

 

1. They're quite smart. Or, at least they have a remarkable memory.

2. They have a trunk which they can use like we use our hands.

3. They're group animals, and communicate a lot with each other.

4. The more obvious choice for chimps is too boring and logical.

 

But I don't see us humans give up just yet.

[Sisyphus]

Human-originated evolved AI?

 

Ok, I guess we're limiting the question to what would happen if we and everything descended from us (naturally or artificially) were to be wiped out. In that case, I still think primates are a strong contender. They've got relatively advanced brains, are (in at least some cases) adaptable and widespread, have grasping limbs, and are highly social. I don't see how any of those characteristics would not be required eventually, so species that already possess them have a big head start. If not the great apes, then new or old world monkeys. That could be said about raccoons, too, although I doubt (but don't know) they have the same kind of complex social relationships. Anything arboreal probably has an advantage, for that matter, since climbing and grasping a tool are not usually that different.

 

As for more exotic choices, I understand certain birds are turning out to be surprisingly intelligent. Parrots are one choice, but I'd bet on corvids, specifically the more social crows. Globally distributed (and, being flyers, capable of rapid expansion), very social, extremely adaptable, and they've demonstrated surprising problem solving ability and even rudimentary tool use. Plus, they're awesome. On the other hand, it's hard to predict what special challenges they might face or limits they might reach that we didn't, on account of their different physiology. Is their brain size or architecture limited in ways that ours isn't? Can they not get much larger and still maintain their advantages, and if not, can a much smaller animal be the same kind of world manipulator we are? Will, for example, flight actually turn out to be a disadvantage, in that certain things will never be initially useful to them?

 

Another choice might be some kind of hive intelligence, like termites. They certainly exhibit complex behaviors, and I imagine they can evolve quickly, but I don't see how they could ever be as adaptable as us on the individual (or hive) level. They could solve complex problems, but only by evolving complex behaviors rather than employing a generalized intelligence (I'm guessing).

 

And then, of course, there's aquatic animals, who would I'm imagining would face such a different experience and would need to follow such a different path that it becomes much harder to speculate. The much greater changability of the environment might be an impossible hurdle by itself. But if it is possible, the two possibilities have got to be marine mammals and cephalopods. Octopodes have exhibited amazing problem solving in novel environments, tool use, even what appears to be playfulness. But AFAIK there aren't any particularly social species, and they very short life spans and very weird brain architecture. Dolphins are obviously highly intelligent and highly social, but lack an obvious path to major tool use, their only grasping ability being with the mouth. They're also tied to the surface by need for air breathing, meaning their primary environment can't really be altered. Maybe their best bet is recolonizing the land?

 

Aside from those, I don't really know. Mokele, I remember you claiming some snakes have comparable intelligence to cats. Any reptiles you think might surprise us?

[iNow]

We are currently top dog.

No, actually... We're not. Only if you limit your population to something like primates can you make such a declaration and have anything resembling accuracy. Since you went on to include all life on earth in the rest of your post, I must protest your opening salvo.

 

Humans are NOT top dog.

 

 

With that said... Hands down, bacteria. Currently top dog, and forever will be... depending, of course, on how you choose to define "top dog."

[Mokele]

iNow said what I was going to. Even if you restrict it to animals, there's several quadrillion beetles that would disagree with you.

 

Remember, technically any organism alive is 'successful'. Claims of any species being "more successful" than another are usually based on subjective biases about range, species number, behavioral flexibility, etc.

[SH3RL0CK]

Couldn't the most sucessful be the animal at the top of the food chain. AFAIK, humans are capable of hunting and eating any animal even animals like bears and alligators. Likewise, a properly equiped group of people need not fear being hunted (they can just find with night vision and shoot the tiger stalking them).

[Mokele]

Why would trophic level matter? Why is a predator any more or less successful than its prey? Again, it's imposing a subjective judgment standard based on little more than our own preferences.

 

Plus, top predators are inevitably the first to go extinct in any major extinction event - they have small numbers, massive energy requirements, and often have become 'locked in' to their niche and are unable to make ends meet by hunting smaller prey.

[SH3RL0CK]

Well, the definition of success is subjective. One could argue that sheer numbers (such as bacteria or insects) define "success." Another arguement would be largest habitat range.

 

I would suggest a definition could be trophic level because this demonstrates the ability to congregate in large numbers in peace (no worries about your predators coming by to eat you, because you have none) leading to the possibility of a civilization. With the ability to develop civlization comes the technology to further modify the environment to further advantage. Where any other animals congregate in large numbers (large herds of buffalo for example) the predators follow and also multiply and there is always a balance of population.

 

Granted that people are somewhat of an exception and aren't really the top of the food chain (but they could be because of the simple fact they are able to kill anything else). For one thing, people are omnivores and most top predators are not (though bears are also an exception). For another, people do not have the smaller numbers that top predators do (there are 6 billion people and most top predators number in the few hundreds of thousands). People are certainly not locked in to a certain type of food (try the various foods available in Japan sometime ), I'm sure there are other differences as well.

[CharonY]

And in the end, everything will be eaten by microbes, anyway.

[Sisyphus]

So arbitrarily define "successful" as successful in the currently unique way in which human beings are successful, and restate the question. I took it to mean something like civilization, occupation of every ecosystem through technology and willful modification of the environment, etc.

[Mokele]

"Man [has] always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reason."

 

-Douglas Adams

[J.C.MacSwell]

No, actually... We're not. Only if you limit your population to something like primates can you make such a declaration and have anything resembling accuracy. Since you went on to include all life on earth in the rest of your post, I must protest your opening salvo.

 

Humans are NOT top dog.

 

 

With that said... Hands down, bacteria. Currently top dog, and forever will be... depending, of course, on how you choose to define "top dog."

 

I defined it by implication in the opening thread when I declared us currently "top dog". I didn't think a long explanation was needed.

[iNow]

Judging from the tone of the posts which followed mine, it appears rather likely that you may have thought wrong. Instead of quibbling about what you thought or wanted when putting forth your OP, it may be most beneficial to your discussion to make said definitions now so we can collectively move forward. Cheers.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Man [has] always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reason."

 

-Douglas Adams

 

 

Same author:

This planet has -- or rather had -- a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

 

And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Judging from the tone of the posts which followed mine, it appears rather likely that you may have thought wrong. Instead of quibbling about what you thought or wanted when putting forth your OP, it may be most beneficial to your discussion to make said definitions now so we can collectively move forward. Cheers.

 

Fair enough, Here's my definition.

 

 

1. We are currently top Dog.

 

2. No other species is currently top dog.

 

3. Top Dog is positive and dominant and most intelligent

 

4. Positive and dominant and most intelligent must be interpreted so as 1. and 2. are currently true.

 

Still lots of room to interpret that loosely.

Have fun.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Another choice might be some kind of hive intelligence, like termites. They certainly exhibit complex behaviors, and I imagine they can evolve quickly, but I don't see how they could ever be as adaptable as us on the individual (or hive) level. They could solve complex problems, but only by evolving complex behaviors rather than employing a generalized intelligence (I'm guessing).

 

 

I've always wondered whether there was a "hive consciousness" as well. An emergence where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

Oddly, in humans we can have "mob mentality" where we have the opposite affect.

Edited June 3, 2009 by J.C.MacSwell

[Mokele]

Positive? Dominant? Neither of those have any real meaning for this. We're definitely not the most dominant in the only definition I know of, ecological dominance, due to being vastly outnumbered by beetles and worms.

 

Do you mean "What other species, post-human-extinction, is most likely to develop high intelligence and civilization?"

[J.C.MacSwell]

Positive? Dominant? Neither of those have any real meaning for this. We're definitely not the most dominant in the only definition I know of, ecological dominance, due to being vastly outnumbered by beetles and worms.

 

 

Clearly then by rule #4 you cannot use that definition for "dominant" to define "Top Dog", even if it is "the only definition" (I'm a little skeptical) you know of.

 

 

Do you mean "What other species, post-human-extinction, is most likely to develop high intelligence and civilization?"

 

That's a reasonable interpretation.

[CaptainPanic]

It's horribly difficult to point out a single dominant species in a world where we have a thing as an ecosystem: many species working together, and one simply doesn't survive without the other.

 

In my previous answer, I have interpreted the question as: "What animal is most likely to develop space flight if humans were to go extinct?".

Surely, humans are unique at least on that point.

[J.C.MacSwell]

So arbitrarily define "successful" as successful in the currently unique way in which human beings are successful, and restate the question. I took it to mean something like civilization, occupation of every ecosystem through technology and willful modification of the environment, etc.

 

This is good.

 

 

It's horribly difficult to point out a single dominant species in a world where we have a thing as an ecosystem: many species working together, and one simply doesn't survive without the other.

 

In my previous answer, I have interpreted the question as: "What animal is most likely to develop space flight if humans were to go extinct?".

Surely, humans are unique at least on that point.

 

Also good. (puts your elephants at a slight disadvantage though:D)

Edited June 4, 2009 by J.C.MacSwell

[Syntho-sis]

Rabbits....dunno if that has been mentioned

 

Survival of the fittest is all about who is best able to reproduce.

 

Or perhaps some type of microorganism?

 

Such as..... *drum roll*

 

The Tardigrade, or as he is better known..the water bear

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

^^ Yes my vote goes to the water bear..

 

hmm perhaps it's best to consider all the other Extremophiles as well.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Syntho-sis
Consecutive posts merged.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Rabbits....dunno if that has been mentioned

 

Survival of the fittest is all about who is best able to reproduce.

 

Or perhaps some type of microorganism?

 

Such as..... *drum roll*

 

The Tardigrade, or as he is better known..the water bear

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

^^ Yes my vote goes to the water bear..

 

hmm perhaps it's best to consider all the other Extremophiles as well.

 

Good find. That might be most likely to succeed on another planet, after space travel, as well.

 

Might "we" possibly have gone through a stage of that?

[Syntho-sis]

Good find. That might be most likely to succeed on another planet, after space travel, as well.

 

Might "we" possibly have gone through a stage of that?

 

I'd say it is most definitely possible. They can survive the vacuum of space, and a decade without water.

 

Perhaps, all the genetic material was stored in us, when we were little "water bears" on another planet.

 

Maybe, an alien race designed us to store all of the genetic material of that planet.

 

A little Noah's ark....

 

Hmmm....What I'm wondering is, what is it that makes an organism Extremophilic?

 

What properties do they have, that allow them to survive nearly absolute zero temperatures?

[CharonY]

I am not so sure about extremophiles. They are heavily adapted to their particular niche, but usually underperform in most others.