Human Supremacy

[Quoth The Raven]

From 'Doctors Guide Global Edition'

Currently, there are over 60,000 deaths per year in the United States from hospital-acquired infections. Nearly forty percent of hospital-acquired Staphylococcus infections are resistant to all antibiotics except vancomycin. Hospital physicians are concerned that if Staphylococcus develops complete resistance to vancomycin, then there will be no effective antibiotics to treat this common infection. Another common hospital bug, Enterococcus, has developed strains resistant even to vancomycin.

Information from the University of Wollongong website:

Multi-drug resistant bacteria are emerging at an increasing rate not matched by the slow development of new antibacterial drugs. A particular concern is the recent development of resistance to vancomycin (1), currently the ‘last resort’ antibiotic for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant STAPHYLOCOCCI and ENTEROCOCCI.

But it's only 60,000 deaths a year(just in the USA)...we're creaming the little buggers.

 

[Majikthise]

I don't think anyone has yet brought up the point that we are entirely dependent upon the earth. One small shift in axis or gravitational pull and we are all ash or icicles.
.

See post #25.

 

[painted wolf]

thus far the only infectious agent we have 'conquered' has been small pox.
However we still keep it as a weapon agent in the USA and Russia.
We no longer have any immunity since it was wiped out in the wild, should it get loose again it would no doubt devistate our species rather quickly.

Otherwise bacteria have proven time and again that it is only a matter of time before the anitbiotics don't work. Its a terrible race between us and them and frankly they can change much faster than we can and are already coming out ahead.

wa:do

 

[Scorn]

Cockroaches have had a pretty good go of the supremacy thing for a while. They’d get my vote. And they’re kinda cool too!

 

[mrscardero]

And, I also doubt that a single strain of virus/bacteria would wipe out our entire race.

You never know.

 

[mrscardero]

I have no doubt that most of the dinosaurs felt they were superior beings on Earth and undefeatable. But hey, look what happened to them. I have a feeling that humans will destroy themselves or the poor environment will. Our bodies will just become the soil for the next self proclaimed superior beings.

If it happened once, it could happen again.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Think about the plague. People back then were idiots, and that was a HUGE epidemic, and only 1 in 3 died. I am just saying, no otehr species has as much influence on this earth and on other species as we do. If raccoons decided to start attacking us, I would doubt they could kill all of us. Bacteria, are changing, yes, but no one strain will wipe out the entire human race. We can destory this world with nuclear weapons (not saying it's a good thing), unlike any other species here. And to the question I didn't answer (sorry Circle_One), if a man hits his wife, for a very short time, yes he is superior to her, but in the long-run, no, he can be arrested/divorced, whatever. So, my answer overall is no, that does not make a man superior to his wife if he hits her.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Oh, and that vancomycin is decades old, here's a clippet from another news story about a Michigan women infected by a resistant bacteria.

http://www.freep.com/news/health/nstaph12_20021112.htm

Even though the bacteria causing the woman's infection were not killed by vancomycin, they did respond in the laboratory to three other drugs. Two are antibiotics introduced within the past two years. The other, an older drug, was given to the woman for three weeks.

 

[Circle_One]

And to the question I didn't answer (sorry Circle_One), if a man hits his wife, for a very short time, yes he is superior to her,

I'm sorry, but I think that's just plain silly. Simply because someone can beat on someone else (or something else) I don't think that shows superiority.

but in the long-run, no, he can be arrested/divorced, whatever. So, my answer overall is no, that does not make a man superior to his wife if he hits her.

So there, he then is not infact superior to her. Simple physical prowess does not make for superiority. One (or many) cannot rely solely on physical strength as a means of superiority, it comes down to a lot more than that.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

thus far the only infectious agent we have 'conquered' has been small pox.
However we still keep it as a weapon agent in the USA and Russia.
We no longer have any immunity since it was wiped out in the wild, should it get loose again it would no doubt devistate our species rather quickly.
wa:do

Not me, baby! I've had Cowpox, so I'll be fine. Me and the cockroaches. And the bacteria.
Saw, you're obviously convinced and comforted by the miracle that is medical science, so I'll leave you to your happy fairyland where 60,000 casualties per year in one country is a win. But as you mentioned nuclear weapons, I'll just say this:
If the ability to destroy oneself is considered superiority, then the lemmings are beating us in droves to supremacy.

 

[w00t]

We are superior intellectually to animals, so therefore we reign supreme. Without human beings I believe God is unable to function.

 

[Doc]

But does that mean that we are superior to the dumb and the retarded because of our intelluctual abilities? If someone is brain dead, that cannot make them inferior by no means. By the way, great input by everyone.

 

[Sunstone]

Intellectual superiority seems to me a fairly narrow criterion on which to generalize an over all superiority.

 

[Valjean]

Does dominance confer supremacy? Is a cat superior to a mouse? A spider to a moth? Does moral development or altruism factor in?

 

[Sunstone]

Is it possible that wisdom confers superiority? In which case, are we the wisest species?

 

[Scorn]

Aha! Now we start to define it. I think that to answer the question logically we have to have a list of qualifiers. Moral development and altruism are certainly both factors. Sustainability of the species and value to the environment should also be on the list. Any others?

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps wisdom should be on the list too, Scorn, but can we define "wisdom" well enough to make it a meaningful criterion? On reflection, I don't think so.

 

[Scorn]

I agree Sunstone. Wisdom is tough to measure. Perhaps wisdom should be de-facto. After all, the measurable diversity in wisdom, it could be argued, is far greater than the rest of the life forms on the planet (or so we think). We do however, need to place a value on this wisdom. But are we comparing apples to oranges then? Perhaps sentience needs to be broken down into subgroups. And if it is apples to oranges then perhaps we need to discount it altogether. I mean, in what terms to I compare myself to a praying mantis? And perhaps I was wrong in my previous post including morality and altruism on the list. They too demand a level of sentience to be meaningful. This is getting interesting.

 

[Sunstone]

But it seems to me that some animals show wisdom. At least as much wisdom as we do. Is sentience really a necessary pre-condition of what we call wisdom? I suppose that largely depends on how one defines wisdom.

 

[Scorn]

Yes! True. And that's why I refered to it as diversity of wisdom. Amoung species we can identify specific wisdom but I wonder if that wisdom is limited to being instinctive. And limited to selfawareness only (assuming other species can be self aware). If a rabbit meets an owl it's learned (or genetic wisdom) might tell it to bolt. I think we'd be hard pressed to believe that rabbit wonders for a moment, "what's the owl going to do?" However, when a person meets an owl in China, their experience with and wisdom about owls will probably be very different than the person who meets one in Texas. (I know it's simplistic, but I think it works)