Who would win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wig44.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neversoft

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).

humans

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

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?

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stutoman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

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.