If intelligence and self-awareness are evolutionarily so overpowered and give such a ridiculous advantage...

I'm fairly close to being a simple misanthrope. I by no means have any bias towards overrating humans, or their capacities.

>ancient aliens
Maybe, but there are a number of possibilities. Don't be brainwashed and let your mind be boxed in by media. Make your own narratives, and find your own possibilities.

Proporationally to the time evolution has been given, it's pretty normal for there to be only one intelligent race

In addition, because of our dominance, the most evolutionary selected trait there is is that which satisfies humans the most. Evolving intellegence that would challenge humans would not do that.

It's not even like we're that incomparable to any other creature on the planet. We're very clearly a member of the ape family, and gorillas and chimps have demonstrated the ability to learn and use sign language.
Humans can't eradicate all other species, and that's also not a metric for evolutionary success that I've ever heard of.
You're the one letting yourself be brainwashed, "humanity = special" is a much more popular meme.
>I by no means have any bias towards overrating humans, or their capacities.
Of course you have bias towards overrating humans, it would be retarded to pretend otherwise, that's a basic tendency that we're born into, and you're more prone to falling for it the more you refuse to acknowledge that tendency exists.
You're like those people who read a study about how faulty memory or perception is and then thinks to themselves "sure that's true for a lot of people, but not for me."

>Of course you have bias towards overrating humans
I don't. It would be retarded to pretend I'm slave to an embedded fallacy that must simply be managed throughout one's life. You're succumbing to the most difficult assumption to uproot and avoid; that everyone is secretly like you, and that your mind is an absolute and perfect model.

If I ever had that tendency, it was removed long ago. More likely it is a tendency that is given, and either I was not apt to receive, or my environment did not give.

>You're like those people who read a study about how faulty memory or perception is
I don't need to read studies about memory or perception, my psyche has been mangled enough that my mind splintered apart into pieces. Low level metacognition and architectural analysis / reengineering is where I spent a significant part of my life. It was my frame of mind. Likewise, ontology and epistemology, with respect to memory as the creator of reality, has been a prime focus. As has dissociation and compartmentalization, in recent times. Before that my focus was on distortion of sensory awareness, consciousness, and subsequent processing. The deficit occurring in the bridging between the conscious and the subconscious. It is more natively relateable.

>"sure that's true for a lot of people, but not for me."
Unfortunately this statement actually is true for me, but I am surrounded by people to which it is great wisdom and truth. It's hard to just say you're not like them, and even if you told them why, they probably still don't understand. They're living in a different world.

>actually is true for me,
actually isn't*
inb4 "freudian slip"

>Humans can't eradicate all other species
not him but i'm pretty sure they can pretty easily

>everyone is secretly like you
It's not a secret, it's reality. You're prone to overemphasizing the tiny handful of unimportant details that can vary slightly from person to person because you're a person and interpersonal differences are subjectively more important to you than they are important in any objective sense.
For proof of this phenomenon, note how little you can tell about the differences between one squirrel and another that you might encounter while walking outside. You probably won't have any idea how old it is, or whether it's male or female, or much of any other concept for it as a distinct entity from all other squirrels. And that's not because these differences don't exist or are more hidden than differences between one person and another. It's because as a human you're more geared towards noticing the slightest little distinctions between one human and another and neglecting to notice the most important distinctions between one non-human and another.
>I don't need to read studies about memory or perception, my psyche has been mangled enough that my mind splintered apart into pieces.
>psych patient
Makes sense desu.

Let's not get carried away here. Deep sea life would be a decent challenge. I mean we could probably pull it off, maybe even including microbes, but it would take novel methods and quite a bit of research. We'd really have to band together and work as a team.

Tell me how you're going to eliminate every last bacterium on the planet.

>build a dyson sphere around earth
>???
>profit!

Remind me, how many known dyson spheres have been built so far?

Also we routinely get wrecked by natural disasters still to this day, which is the case specifically because we're not able to artificially control the entire planet like that.

>I've been wondering how roads and such will shape evolution of deer, butterflies, small mammals, caterpillars, etc.
In Soviet Union, caterpillar shape roads.

none because we'd build a dyson sphere for a different purpose than killing every organism, i'm just theorizing desu, but earth is 12000 times smaller than sun so that should be attainable very soon

>that should be attainable very soon
I don't know of any evidence for this being even remotely true. We'd have a very strong incentive for doing so if we could eliminate 100% of all natural disaster deaths and property destruction, and we aren't anywhere close to controlling the weather today.

but increasing entropy is way easier than decreasing it

I think you believe you're making sense here, but no. Maybe try elaborating with an actual train of thought for the non-schizophrenic crowd here.

in a brainlet-friendly way? i'll try
in order to eradicate life on earth you have to increase entropy, which is easy
in order to control weather and cataclysms, you have to prevent the entropy from increasing in one place, which is harder
therefore, eradicating life on earth should be easier and i'm can't think of a dozen methods that would kill at least 99.99% of all species, so 100% shouldn't be a problem, backtracking a few posts I don't think there is any species that could kill, let's say, 100 chosen species if they intended, while humans can easily get rid of millions

>interpersonal differences are subjectively more important to you than they are important in any objective sense.
Subtle differences in people determines their behavior, responses to stimuli (and how that response propagates forward over time), and therefore how their activities influence the evolution of complex systems at a macro scale. This is how vertical control structures, layered organization, mass marketing, and propaganda work. Crowd psychology would not be successful if small differences did not have major consequences in the temporal dimension.

Likewise, there is little difference between watching squirrels, watching rain, and watching a bag of marbles. Perception of scale is important, as is accessibility of non-local elements. Some systems are easier to meaningfully break down into discrete interacting pieces than others.

The objective impacts are the easiest metric for determining differences. Humans collectively are a system for small differences in each element do actually matter, in a control sense. In a functional one, small differences do not amount to major differences in behavior.

>>psych patient
I'm not a psyche patient currently or formerly.

Entropy has nothing to do with this topic you pseud, that's a complete non sequitur, like trying to bring up quantum physics in a discussion about making money in real estate. Yes, entropy would increase if the entire planet blew up or whatever, but that's not a method for eliminating life on Earth, that's a high level abstract label for the concept of disorder.

every intelligent specie exterminated by humans. even chimpanzees are in danger of extinction and the only reason is humans again.

we can say it's because of competition.

thanks for the kek OP, you have to have at least an IQ of 155 to make this post so double kek to that and triple kek

Because intelligence causes a species to be so efficient they destroy the environment and themselves. It's a lethal mutation, no joke.

Humans eradicate most of their comrades unintentionally because they are too busy thinking about themselves and not their place in the world. Which has turned out to be an evolutionary trap, as widespread biodiversity/boundary condition loss are causing global ecological collapse. It's reasonable to assume humans as a species likely will not be spared from this mass extinction they are pushing to the finish line.

...

Evolution is not goal-driven. It doesn't say, "Whoa, intelligence would be great, let's develop that!"

wow, you're such a genius
that's not the question OP asked

>I'm not biased
I guess if you say so we have to believe it

>not sure if trolling but show me any other species that can eradicate all other species only if it intended to do so
We're not even close to being able to eradicate all other species on earth. We MIGHT be able to eradicate all humans

what an absolute moron

>If intelligence and self-awareness are evolutionarily so overpowered and give such a ridiculous advantage

Do they? The human populations with the highest intelligence breed far less than the others.

so?
how is population a measure of species' power?
he is right

well survival is a sign of success for the species

and what does population have to do with survival?