ATS Title Fight:Loki v ktprktpr:Intelligent Life.

Loki v Ktprktpr

OK,Here we go this is for the title.
This is the big one.
Let them duke it out!!


Each debator will have one opening statement each.This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each.There will be one closing statement each and no rebutal.
No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom.Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only 1 image or link may be included in any post.Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

The Debate topic is:That only one intelligent species (sentient) can evolve and survive on any world at any one time.

Loki will argue for this proposition and he will open the Debate.
Ktpr will respond and argue against this proposition.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours.However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this.

Defaulters will not be excepted in the next Tournament.The winner will receive 10000 ATS points the loser(on condition of completion)will receive 5000 ATS points.This on top of generous points allocation for Debate forum posts.

This Topic will be opened next Sunday 9th Nov,Evening GMT and the debate may start.

I wish you both goodluck.

The winner will remain or become the ATS Debate Champion.

I will be calling on extra judges for this contest.If you are asked please keep your identity hidden from the board.

Details of how you can participate in the next Debate Tournament and have a chance at becoming ATS Debate Champion will be appearing on the board very soon.

Goodluck to both our Finalists.


[Edited on 5-11-2003 by John bull 1]

As we have no basis for comparison, we can only argue such a question merely in a theoretical sense. However, if we assume that life interacts in the way that it does here on earth as it would on other planets, then I believe it is safe to say that only one sentient species can evolve to it's full potential on a single planet.

This is supported by an episode seen in the history of man over and over again, when the more advanced species of man simply outperforms older species of man. Take for example the interction of neanderthal and cro-magnon man.

In the time following the last ice age, Neanderthal man was the dominant species of human in europe. However, as time passed, a growing threat presented itself. Cro-Magnon man began to encroach upon neanderthal's territory.

Cro-Magnon is what can be considered the first example of 'Modern' man. He walked completely upright, used tools, and had the ability to solve complex problems, as well as the capacity for a 'full' language.

This sort of interaction has happened throughout history, so that the one race whom would dominate the earth would also be the most advanced. It is from these episodes that I make the assumption that there can be only one sentient species on a planet. However, there are some limits to this...

When I say that there can be only one species, I really mean that in the long-term sense. While two species of man existed at a time, they were very similar, and also, neither of them were advanced technologically. I contend that once a race begins to become more and more technologically advanced, the chance of another race evolving and striving becomes less and less, until the possibility is no longer possible.

Again, I remind all observers that this is not a debate that can be adequately proven with facts, rather, it is very much a debate of theories. I now leave the floor to my opponent, Ktprktpr.

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by John bull 1]

This is the question before us: Can two evolving, now sentient, species survive at the same time, on the same world? This question has two components: Survival and Evolution. There is an implication of having two species, with one species eventually "winning" and the other species "losing", or dying out. Does this happen for intelligent species? Let's take a closer look at the components involved.

Natural selection is always on. It exists in the woman we pick (or men; if you swing that way), in the food we eat and the age we die. And natural selection is the only thing that drives evolution. You can't have evolution without it. Hence, with natural selection as fuel, evolution is always churning. This perpetual effect causes all species, sentient or not, to always evolve.

What about survival? This is the tricky part. The time frame used to judge survival is crucial. For instance: Say, two species, A and B, evolved and survived together for a million years. At some unfortunate point in time, A killed every existing B. Then A dies out, a thousand years later. Can A be said to have survived B?

It's a hard call, but to have any weight, the question of survival must be related to the length of prior mutual existence. A semantic tool for making this judgment is the following:

---

Given two species A and B, compare the length of time species A survived against the length of time A and B existed together.

If A's survival period is insignificant, by comparison, than A did not "survive" in any significant sense.

---

I argue that if a intelligent species kills off its' neighbor, by accident or intent, the surviving species will die off (as in extinction) in an insignificant amount of time. I also contend that Mother Evolution "knows" this. Actual cases of genocide among non-sentient species are rare, if existing at all.

Evolution forces vital and inter-connected relationships among competing species, because they both affect another. Destroying that relationship also destroys the entities at both ends. A parallel to this can be found with Man and Gaia (assuming the ecosystem is so complex as to be sentient, perhaps more so than Man). Man and Gaia are slowly purchasing a one way ticket to hell. If you have two evolving sentient species to begin with and one killed off the other, the remaining species will shortly die out.

I think I've recovered enough from whatever I had to make this post, and not have it involve half-delerious ramblings.

I will continue to assert that no matter what small evolutionary squabbles occur between subspecies, we must look at the big picture, as my opponent has so ably pointed out.

The real question at hand is not which species outlasts the other, and for how long, rather, the question is whether or not these two species can coexist in their sentience for any extended period of time. As it was seen with the episode between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal, the latter was cleaned from the face of europe in a mere few centuries, the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of evolution. Obviously I would not be alone in asserting that this could definitely NOT be considered coexistence for the purpose of Mutual benefit.

While I'm on the subject, I feel I must address the 'rules' of species' interaction, especially in humans and other primates. Through studies of the great apes, and chimps, we have discovered quite a bit about the 'Three F's' of human interaction. It's quite bewildering to know that every human reaction is based on pure animal instinct. These three f's stand for Fight, Flight, or Fornicate. These are the only three basic animal responses to an unexpected stimulus.

With this in mind, one must consider what was going through the minds of less evolved human beings, such as Neanderthal man, when he saw something similar to him, that posed a great threat upon his land, his hunting grounds, etc. The most obvious F to choose from would be Fight, as according to several observed tendencies in nature regarding the encroachment of dangerous competition.

So, all of this in mind, one must consider the odds that two species could evolve to any sort of higly intelligent being, simply because one would inevitably kill the other off, well before either could begin amassing proper technology. It's just the way the world works. Survival of the fittest prevails in the end. One species of intelligent life evolving to any significant point is difficult enough without competition attempting to literally destroy them at every turn.

The example I presented, of the reactions between Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon man is simply a microcosm of the entire issue. It is entirely safe to assume that all such unexpected interactions can lead to the same or similar results, as can be observed in nature with less intelligent creatures...

I feel I must remind everyone once more that no matter how evolved, and brilliant we think we are...we're still just as much of slaves to our natural instincts as our pets....and in such a situation as species of intelligent life competeing for the same land, resources, and other such perks, that natural instinct is to fight, and kill, until the competition is gone.

I leave you with this, a graph showing very clearly the influence of instinct on various forms of life...

Sadly Ktpr has had to withdraw because of family responsibility.

On behalf of the board I'd just like to say that I hope that everything goes as best as they can for you.