Poll: How would you measure a species' success?

[FireDr@gon]

Just curious about which features most people consider to be important when judging a species' success.
This basically stems from a debate which boils down to "who's winning - people or bacteria?"

Feel free to justify your poll answers and if you think more than one is important, just pick the one you feel is most important and write the others in. If you have a specific species in mind then i'd be interested to know that too...

 

[WolfCross]

Adaptability i guess, if a species can survive for a long time, in one area, under stable conditions, stable food sources etc. well that's great but as soon as shit hits the wall, which it does, then being able to adapt and survive Darwin style, is what counts for me at least.


captcha: bigger in texas

Stay out of this Captcha!

 

[Vault101]

........

do bacteria have the internet?

nuff said

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Intelligence.
It's why us humans have survived, It's why we are seperate from "Animals".
It's allowed us to be more adaptable. Clothing, Air conditioning, vaccines.
Can't say that any other species have come up with that crap.

 

[Keoul]

I'd say the species success is measured on it's accomplishments
Humans managed to get off the planet, your move bacteria.

 

[kurupt87]

Population. If it can be said that there is a point to life, that point would be to produce more life. Things like adaptability and intelligence etc enable the species to survive and produce more of itself, they are enablers while population growth is the goal.

So, the mark of how successful a species is should be its population.

Edit: Traits is what the other options are, I couldn't remember that word before. But yeah, they're all (I can't see them all anymore, so just assuming) traits whereas population is the goal.

 

[Signa]

Shit. All of the above? I mean, I consider alligators really successful, because they've been around for over a million years as I understand it. Sure, they don't build cars, but they don't really need to change much about their genetic and physical attributes.

 

[GTwander]

By how well it takes to being a taco.
So far, cows are totally winning the race. Why do you think aliens keep taking them?

 

[Jonluw]

The species' longevity.

Because longevity is a result of, or incorporates, all the minor factors that could be considered success such as wide habitats, adaptability, and number of individuals.

 

[TheHmm]

The best species is the one that spreads the most by being the most adaptable.

The best race of that species is the one that flourishes the most (most offspring)

So...

Bacteria looses to humans because humans can exist and be active in Vaccum and several hundered degree environments (just because we dont LIVE there doesnt mean we cant)

And the african race of the species Homo-Sapiens wins out completely.

However... if you build more on that argument...

The african race homo-sapiens cant survive in vacuum (no technology has come from africa facilitating living in vacuum, Homo-sapiens use technology to be adaptable, bacteria use evolution(darwin style))

Different races are winning different races

Though as a species, humans are pretty cool.

 

[Daveman]

I have to go with adaptability and the ability to survive in virtually any environment. It also means it is better placed to survive any changes headed its way. In this way I would also incorporate intelligence into it as that puts us well above bacteria in terms of adaptability. We can survive in climates with no bacteria and no other species spans the globe as we do.

 

[Ultrajoe]

A commonly accepted ranking, which I am surprised you haven't heard of, is the Kardashev scale. It determines the advancement of a civilization by measuring how much energy it has at it's disposal. Other, similar rankings, determine a species' ability in terms of it's utilities. For example, humanity has a worldwide communication network, a feat we are the second species on the planet to achieve, behind the whales.

I find these a little more specific and useful than the longevity score, because you can only work that out after the fact.

[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale[/link]

 

[OvBr]

It's quite simple, really. Whichever one has the biggest guns wins.

 

[Random Fella]

To me, as long as the species is still un-extinct, it is currently successful
When all members of the species are removed, the species has failed to adapt and therefore has been unsuccessful.
All species have evolved from common ancestors, so they are successful until removal from existence.

 

[StBishop]

I like all of the answers people are giving which basically says "We win!!!".

I think longevity of species. Nothing else matters when you're extinct. In a few billion years when we're all dead our adaptability is nothing. It's only a tool which helps us to succeed.

For example, being able to slam dunk may be your goal; while being tall is a benefit, it's not a success state innately, however slam dunking is.
Jumping really high might help, but is also not a success state, nor are stretchy limbs.

What I'm saying is, when measuring a species success, where the goal is survival, intelligence is only one method of achieving success, but does not mean we have succeeded.

I would also consider longevity of individuals and number of individuals an element of success, but 1,000,000,000,000 individuals who all live for 1,000,000,000,000 and never procreate are beaten by the bacteria which is less numerous, less long lived, but creates successive generations over a greater time span.

 

[Random Fella]

To me, as long as the species is still un-extinct, it is currently successful
When all members of the species are removed, the species has failed to adapt and therefore has been unsuccessful.
All species have evolved from common ancestors, so they are successful until removal from existence.

Correct and the point I was trying to make. There really is two types of extinction "hard" meaning a total wipe out without the genetic line surviving. Or "soft" which is the species comes to a defining end through the radical changes it endured over a extreme period of time through evolution. Certainly the "soft" is one of success.

Well, then it's really more about the success of a lineage of species rather than the success of a single species, as by evolving through successful adaption to their environment, they are no longer of that original species in a case of success in evolution via natural selection.
So yeah, I'd really only call as you would say "hard" extinction as a true showing of an unsuccessful species.

 

[TheDutchin]

longevity, how long your species can stay on this small watery rock ripping through space, all while it explodes, freezes, burns and tries to throw you off it at the same time. The other options are really just enablers of longevity.

 

[Soviet Steve]

If they're alive then they're doing well, and if they're moving further from extinction so much the better. If they're extinct or going extinct they've failed or are doing poorly.

 

[V3rtig0]

I was going to choose something technology-related when I first saw the title, but the closest option is "Intelligence". I think that a good way to judge a species' success is by their technological progress. Adaptability is also very important, though, in my opinion, slightly less so.