Who would win?

[dbgtz]

Humans or the rest of the animal kingdom? Personally I think the rest of the animal kingdom as they have the insects and they can easily sneak past and kill us in the way they may naturally do (like stinging) but we can cure alot of these but they can't cure a bullet, so it's hard to say but, obviously, they have a higher count then us. It's a matter of opinion really.

[HotelUser]

Animals would prevail assuming we are not allowed to use third party fighting equipment. If that's not the case humans would win because we own tanks and planes and they do not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Humans if we have weapons, we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out a majority of mammals if we wanted to although granted, that would also mean wiping ourselves out at the same time.

[Bun]

humans obv, we could kill anything init cos we iz smart us

[ChickenFaces]

I agree that the animal kingdom would win. Unless like we got some massive bomb that straight up wiped out the entire rest of the animal kingdom but then we'd eventually die anyway because then there would be no food or plants due to lack of insects and other things to pollinate plants so either way were screwed. =/

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree that the animal kingdom would win. Unless like we got some massive bomb that straight up wiped out the entire rest of the animal kingdom but then we'd eventually die anyway because then there would be no food or plants due to lack of insects and other things to pollinate plants so either way were screwed. =/

Actually going on from that, we do have biological weapons and if we could manipulate them (as we have done in the past and present) to only attack certain organisms then yeah we could wipe out all the animals - so yeah we could win. :8

[Bun]

it wouldn't even be a contest to be fair lol. as long as everyone knew the score it would be one sided.

[JackBuddy]

Well you have to think about micro-organisms too... if they count as animals.

Humans wouldn't win though, who'd want to kill this...? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9f-6jygRJk

[Neversoft]

Animals don't stand a chance against humans. Theres a reason we're at the top of the food chain.

[dbgtz]

yes but when it's like 100billion vs 6 billion y'no. It's like saying China has the biggest population but the world vs China I think the world would win if you get me ;) Yeah if this was to go down it would be interesting. Also I don't think I'd class micro-organisms as animals :P

[FlyingJesus]

Assuming all non-humans lifeforms knew that they were meant to attack humans, the "animals" would win. There are plenty of diseases that could easily carry themselves to us in more effective ways if only they had actual brains and such, and even larger beasts are in general more hardy than we are. Humans have only got as far as we have through superior brain power and use of tools

[Bun]

yeh but we have guns, bombs, flamethrowers n harpoons. they don't......

[Adamm]

yes but when it's like 100billion vs 6 billion y'no. It's like saying China has the biggest population but the world vs China I think the world would win if you get me ;) Yeah if this was to go down it would be interesting. Also I don't think I'd class micro-organisms as animals :P
Just everyone kill an ant and we're 10% there.

[ecstasy]

Well if we 'declared war' on the animal kingdom tomorrow then we'd definitely win because the animals would have no idea what was going on.
If the animals knew to attack us though, it wouldnt be as easy but we'd still win because we have weapons

[Black_Apalachi]

Assuming all non-humans lifeforms knew that they were meant to attack humans, the "animals" would win. There are plenty of diseases that could easily carry themselves to us in more effective ways if only they had actual brains and such, and even larger beasts are in general more hardy than we are. Humans have only got as far as we have through superior brain power and use of tools

This. If every non-human lifeform suddenly developed an instinct to hunt down any humans, there's a lot more than just sharp teeth and claws to worry about.

[Neversoft]

yes but when it's like 100billion vs 6 billion y'no. It's like saying China has the biggest population but the world vs China I think the world would win if you get me ;) Yeah if this was to go down it would be interesting. Also I don't think I'd class micro-organisms as animals :P

But compare the amount of animals who could kill a human to the amount of humans would could kill an animal. Humans win. As Adamm said, everyone kill an ant and we're 10% there.

[Black_Apalachi]

But compare the amount of animals who could kill a human to the amount of humans would could kill an animal. Humans win. As Adamm said, everyone kill an ant and we're 10% there.

I believe there are estimated to be about a million ants to every human in the world :P

[Wig44.]

Why do people say 'Humans lose without their guns, artillery nuclear and biological weapons etc etc!!!!!!!!!!'? Because if we apply that to a lion 'Remove his claws and teeth' that seems to make no sense, we must fight the animals with no weapons when they have their weapons. In a 1 on 1 situation, with weapons humans prevail, without weapons it's still not clear cut - we have the advantage of our brains and are able to utilise the environment around us (throw rocks/stones, get to terrain that doesn't suit the animal etc) so it's very very easy to say that humans win. If we don't have our weapons (and animals don't have theirs either) it's easy. If we do have our weapons (and animals have theirs) it becomes easier.

[Gibs960]

It'd sort of be like avatar :D I'd say the rest of animal kingdom, although we have guns, give a tiger a forest and you won't see it till it's on top of you ripping your head off.

[lTraditional]

Humans i guess because i like others said, if we had weapons then we could easily beat them but saying that the insects are so small (Most of them) that they could easily get away and hide.

[Jamiie]

Humans with all our weapons and stuff :D

[Suspective]

Humans for sure

Edited by MattGarner (Assistant General Manager): Please do not create pointless comments in the debates forum.

[GommeInc]

I'm opting for animals and insects, some are immune to whatever we chuck at them, and there are alot of animals out there. Besides, when we get hurt we tend to cry and scream about it, while basic animal instinct means if, say, a snake got attacked it would attack back harder in defence, humans are known to panic if backed into a corner while a fox would destroy whatever has got it run into a corner. Alot of animals carry disease too, so disposing of the bodies would be a difficult one for us, if the animals don't destroy us, the creatures living in their bodies and the bacteria too would certainly see the rest if finished :P

An interesting idea none the less.

[Wig44.]

I'm opting for animals and insects, some are immune to whatever we chuck at them, and there are alot of animals out there. Besides, when we get hurt we tend to cry and scream about it, while basic animal instinct means if, say, a snake got attacked it would attack back harder in defence, humans are known to panic if backed into a corner while a fox would destroy whatever has got it run into a corner. Alot of animals carry disease too, so disposing of the bodies would be a difficult one for us, if the animals don't destroy us, the creatures living in their bodies and the bacteria too would certainly see the rest if finished :P

An interesting idea none the less.

I disagree, we can easily wear full body protection.

[Black_Apalachi]

Why do people say 'Humans lose without their guns, artillery nuclear and biological weapons etc etc!!!!!!!!!!'? Because if we apply that to a lion 'Remove his claws and teeth' that seems to make no sense, we must fight the animals with no weapons when they have their weapons. In a 1 on 1 situation, with weapons humans prevail, without weapons it's still not clear cut - we have the advantage of our brains and are able to utilise the environment around us (throw rocks/stones, get to terrain that doesn't suit the animal etc) so it's very very easy to say that humans win. If we don't have our weapons (and animals don't have theirs either) it's easy. If we do have our weapons (and animals have theirs) it becomes easier.

I think the Battle of Isandlwana made it fairly clear that numbers beats weapons.

[Wig44.]

I think the Battle of Isandlwana made it fairly clear that numbers beats weapons.

How are the two even comparable? The difference in 'weaponry' between human and animals is so huge it dwarfs the differences between Zulu and British weaponry in the encounter.

[Ebbymac]

Depending of if we have weapons/protection humans would win.
If we don't, the animals. Their poison, bites, etc.

[GommeInc]

I disagree, we can easily wear full body protection.

Quite alot of animals can penetrate that. Not by fangs (e.g. snakes), teeth (e.g. lions) or claws (e.g. Golden Eagle), but the possibility of constriction, gas or liquid attacks like acid which would eat away at the materials in body armour/protection.

This is assuming that man and animal are both throwing caution and fear to the wind, and attacking with no hessitation.

[Smits]

We would win, insects would die from poison, shoot everything else

[Neversoft]

A lot of people seem to be forgetting that a lot of animals are infact scared of humans, instantly giving us the upper hand. They would flee, they wouldn't attack. Is everyone also forgetting that animals are afraid of fire? Humans don't need weapons, all we need is a fire torch to dominate all animal life. If we burn down all of the forests that would kill a significant number of animals and then the rest would have no where to hide. Humans have used fire to protect themselves from animals for thousands of years. Animals got nothin' on fire!

[Black_Apalachi]

How are the two even comparable? The difference in 'weaponry' between human and animals is so huge it dwarfs the differences between Zulu and British weaponry in the encounter.

If all the insects in the world just plagued us constantly, our weapons would do **** all.


A lot of people seem to be forgetting that a lot of animals are infact scared of humans, instantly giving us the upper hand. They would flee, they wouldn't attack. Is everyone also forgetting that animals are afraid of fire? Humans don't need weapons, all we need is a fire torch to dominate all animal life. If we burn down all of the forests that would kill a significant number of animals and then the rest would have no where to hide. Humans have used fire to protect themselves from animals for thousands of years. Animals got nothin' on fire!

I was assuming all the animals of the world had simultaneously gained an instinct to hunt humans in the sense of a war. The fire thing is probably the best argument there is although as typical humans, we would inevitably only be destroying ourselves in the end.

[Neversoft]

although as typical humans, we would inevitably only be destroying ourselves in the end.

How so? If man was going to destroy itself then it would have happened by now. Another good point is that humans are smarter. We can think up plans a lot more detailed than animals can and we could easily take advantage of their weaknesses. Animals got nothin' on humans!

[Black_Apalachi]

How so? If man was going to destroy itself then it would have happened by now. Another good point is that humans are smarter. We can think up plans a lot more detailed than animals can and we could easily take advantage of their weaknesses. Animals got nothin' on humans!

If we're torching the whole world, you don't think there's any risk at all of it backfiring (excuse the pun!)? Even if it is a successful operation; once all other lifeforms are wiped out, it's only a matter of time before we ourselves are wiped out. Fact.

Also, I think you're overestimating the human race somewhat. Sure, we are an intelligent species, the most intelligent in fact. But there are still a hell of a lot of dumb asses out there. I don't think we should assume that it would only be the most intelligent among us who would be controlling operations. Put it like this; at the end of the day if I was given the choice, I'd choose Team Nature (and yes, nature would be on the animals' side).

[Richie]

humans

Edited by Nicola (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly, you need to give reasons for your answers.

[Neversoft]

If we're torching the whole world, you don't think there's any risk at all of it backfiring (excuse the pun!)? Even if it is a successful operation; once all other lifeforms are wiped out, it's only a matter of time before we ourselves are wiped out. Fact.

Also, I think you're overestimating the human race somewhat. Sure, we are an intelligent species, the most intelligent in fact. But there are still a hell of a lot of dumb asses out there. I don't think we should assume that it would only be the most intelligent among us who would be controlling operations. Put it like this; at the end of the day if I was given the choice, I'd choose Team Nature (and yes, nature would be on the animals' side).

That is certainly not a fact. Who said anything about torching the whole world in the first place? Fair enough burning down all of the forests would be a bit much, but it wouldn't be enough to eliminate mankind. Also, haven't you heard of a little something called vegetarianism? Humans don't need to live off of animals to survive.

I disagree. I think you're underestimating the human race somewhat. Yes, there are dumb people in the world education wise, but no one unless they have some kind of problem or illness is incapable of thinking smarter than an animal. I'm not even sure what you mean by your last two sentences.

Consider this - one human person could not kill a bear by themself, but ten people at the same time could. Now compare the human population to the amount of bears in the world. Humans win through numbers - by far. Most animals in the world aren't even aggressive. Do you seriously believe that animals would beat humans in a fight?

[Black_Apalachi]

But it's not just humans v bears - it's humans v everything! And I said from the beginning that for the sake of this argument I'm assuming all animals will become aggressive towards humans.

[Firehorse]

humans would win. biological warfare would wipe out insects and everything bigger than a rat would die with a bullet through its head.

[Black_Apalachi]

humans would win. biological warfare would wipe out insects and everything bigger than a rat would die with a bullet through its head.

You don't get it though! There's countless more animals than humans and I wouldn't be surprised if there were even more animals than bullets.

[HotelUser]

You don't get it though! There's countless more animals than humans and I wouldn't be surprised if there were even more animals than bullets.

Yes but we have tanks and fighter jets.

[Firehorse]

You don't get it though! There's countless more animals than humans and I wouldn't be surprised if there were even more animals than bullets.

anything up to the size of a rat can be wiped out by a gas spray, and most dogs have owners who could butcher their pets which only leaves the few wild animals and the ones in zoos which are easily manageable by the armies of the world.

[Black_Apalachi]

anything up to the size of a rat can be wiped out by a gas spray, and most dogs have owners who could butcher their pets which only leaves the few wild animals and the ones in zoos which are easily manageable by the armies of the world.

You just raised another point! There will be a LOT of people who would be unwilling to even take part in the war. Dog owners as you mentioned would probably be top of that list.

[Grig]

No one would win with the other being killed is my simple answer.

Although, humans would simply win with technology and the fact that humans outnumber the more deadlier animals. Although believe it or not, the number one most lethal way to die is my disease from bugs like mosquitoes, Maleria and the likes.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm a massive advocate of humanism but seriously people, if all non-human lifeforms on the planet actively wanted us gone we'd have no chance. We don't do that fantastically even now (consider the immense number of human deaths that are down to viruses and such, which are alive) and it's simply not enough to suggest that biological weaponry and poisons could do the trick for us. First off, we're biological too so it would be dangerous to us, and secondly just think about the sheer numbers we'd be up against and the fact that life of some sort can be found in just about every single place on the planet, and many of them you obviously can't even see so we'd have no way of knowing if we'd beaten it.

We in fact could not possibly win, because there are certain lifeforms that humans require in order to survive, so even a victory would be a self-defeating one.

[le harry]

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU GONNA DO WHEN THE AFRICAN BEE SWARM COMES AT YOU. WHAT ARE YOUR BULLETS GONNA DO THEN *REMOVED*. AND WHILE THOSE BEES ARE BITING THE LIVING **** OUT OF YOUR FACES AND YOU'RE WRITHING IN PAIN THE SOLDIER ANTS OF THE AMAZON WILL AMBUSH YOU FROM BELOW AND CRAWL UP YOUR PANTS AND BITE YOUR **** OFF. YEAH GUYS WE'RE SO GONNA WIN.

Edited by Nicola (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude to other forum members.

[leah]

Humans if we had weapons, although the animals could sneak up on us when we were sleeping i suppose...

[Black_Apalachi]

I'm a massive advocate of humanism but seriously people, if all non-human lifeforms on the planet actively wanted us gone we'd have no chance. We don't do that fantastically even now (consider the immense number of human deaths that are down to viruses and such, which are alive) and it's simply not enough to suggest that biological weaponry and poisons could do the trick for us. First off, we're biological too so it would be dangerous to us, and secondly just think about the sheer numbers we'd be up against and the fact that life of some sort can be found in just about every single place on the planet, and many of them you obviously can't even see so we'd have no way of knowing if we'd beaten it.

We in fact could not possibly win, because there are certain lifeforms that humans require in order to survive, so even a victory would be a self-defeating one.

Give that man a cigar.


WHAT THE **** ARE YOU GONNA DO WHEN THE AFRICAN BEE SWARM COMES AT YOU. WHAT ARE YOUR BULLETS GONNA DO THEN *REMOVED*. AND WHILE THOSE BEES ARE BITING THE LIVING **** OUT OF YOUR FACES AND YOU'RE WRITHING IN PAIN THE SOLDIER ANTS OF THE AMAZON WILL AMBUSH YOU FROM BELOW AND CRAWL UP YOUR PANTS AND BITE YOUR **** OFF. YEAH GUYS WE'RE SO GONNA WIN.

Edited by Nicola (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude to other forum members.

...and that one!

[Stefy09]

*Removed*


Edited by Catzsy(Forum Moderator): Please don't make pointless posts.

[Wig44.]

I'm a massive advocate of humanism but seriously people, if all non-human lifeforms on the planet actively wanted us gone we'd have no chance. We don't do that fantastically even now (consider the immense number of human deaths that are down to viruses and such, which are alive) and it's simply not enough to suggest that biological weaponry and poisons could do the trick for us. First off, we're biological too so it would be dangerous to us, and secondly just think about the sheer numbers we'd be up against and the fact that life of some sort can be found in just about every single place on the planet, and many of them you obviously can't even see so we'd have no way of knowing if we'd beaten it.

We in fact could not possibly win, because there are certain lifeforms that humans require in order to survive, so even a victory would be a self-defeating one.

He said the animal kingdom not all living lifeforms. Besides, lifeforms such as bacteria and viruses are unable to 'want us gone'. Take the virus, it does NOT want us gone nor will it ever want us gone - firstly because it is incapable of such a notion and secondly because without a host (like all parasites) it dies. We could easily destroy the animal kingdom in its entirety, with human deaths yes, and it would be a self defeating victory without animals to eat (because the planet simply cannot support the entire population being vegans).

[Black_Apalachi]

He said the animal kingdom not all living lifeforms. Besides, lifeforms such as bacteria and viruses are unable to 'want us gone'. Take the virus, it does NOT want us gone nor will it ever want us gone - firstly because it is incapable of such a notion and secondly because without a host (like all parasites) it dies. We could easily destroy the animal kingdom in its entirety, with human deaths yes, and it would be a self defeating victory without animals to eat (because the planet simply cannot support the entire population being vegans).

Well 'animal kingdom' is pretty vague and we've established that whichever lifeforms you're talking about would need to acquire the instinct to constantly target human beings.

[Describe]

humans would win. biological warfare would wipe out insects and everything bigger than a rat would die with a bullet through its head.
Let us not forget cockroaches.

[FlyingJesus]

Besides, lifeforms such as bacteria and viruses are unable to 'want us gone'.

As opposed to, say, cats? Fairly sure that humans are the only creatures on the planet capable of processing such thought patterns as the desire to wipe out an entire species (rather than just immediate and present threats), hence the hypothetical "if".