« Destroying The Town In Order To Save It | Main | What Caused An Emissions Decline In The United States? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"We're supposed to be smarter than lobsters". Why? Says who? How so?

Are we talking about whether we can defeat a lobster in a game of chess?

And who is "we"? Is this an individual comparison? Can person X get a higher score on the SAT than lobster Y?

Or is this a species "we"? Comparing the long term sum of individual lobster "decisions" to the long term sum of individual human "decisions", I'm pretty sure the objective observer would go with the lobsters. While lobsters, as a whole, may not have added much in the way of art and music, they also haven't warmed the climate, destroyed global ecosystems, instigated global extinctions, etc. I'm sure I'm not qualified to net that out, but simply as a layman's gut reaction it sure feels like maybe the lobsters have the superior track record, all things considered.

Maybe we (humans) are setting our sights too high. Maybe lobsters are out of our league. Perhaps the appropriate goal should be something like bacteria or viruses or rodents or mosquitos?

Or maybe it wouldn't matter at all because, at a species level, we all basically behave the same. We are all trying to maximize our consumption of accessible energy. Doing that produces waste. It just happens that humans figured out how to do it in such a way and at such a scale that it produces enormously more waste and destruction (especially when you include the increased population allowed by the ways we get access to energy). Perhaps we, the lobsters, and the rest are all just playing the same game. Maybe it has nothing to do with smart, just everything to do with life.

Still, in the positive impact bet between humans and lobsters.... take the crustacean. ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.