Humanity vs. All the Animals - Who Would Win?

[The Three Palins]

Humans would take some losses on the first day, particularly from pets. Perhaps from birds if they know that to chase us in front of traffic is the best way. Rural areas would be seriously depopulated.

However, there aren't a lot of large animals capable of breaking glass, in the cities where most people live. We'd foil their murderous intentions by doing what we're best at: staying inside our houses. The military would deliver supplies, until supplies ran out, but people wouldn't be starving to death for maybe a year.

Within that time we'd kill them all, using conventional military means, and perhaps species-specific chemical and biological weapons. All of this assuming that micro-organisms cannot willfully evolve to pose maximum threat to us, in which case "animals" might win.

Humans wouldn't be able to survive without animals though.

Escherichia coli may be essential. Bos taurus is not.

[The Emerald Legion]

Humans would take some losses on the first day, particularly from pets. Perhaps from birds if they know that to chase us in front of traffic is the best way. Rural areas would be seriously depopulated.

However, there aren't a lot of large animals capable of breaking glass, in the cities where most people live. We'd foil their murderous intentions by doing what we're best at: staying inside our houses. The military would deliver supplies, until supplies ran out, but people wouldn't be starving to death for maybe a year.

Within that time we'd kill them all, using conventional military means, and perhaps species-specific chemical and biological weapons. All of this assuming that micro-organisms cannot willfully evolve to pose maximum threat to us, in which case "animals" might win.

Humans wouldn't be able to survive without animals though.

I mean we could survive.

[Infected Mushroom]

It should be total human victory because humanity is the master race.

We have firearms (which are basically Zeus thunderbolt launchers) and much more. Tigers, lions, bears etc would be rendered irrelevant once we group up. The insects could cause a bit of trouble but not once we resort to chemical warfare. The biggest weapon of all is the human intellect and mind. I believe humanity would prevail.

[Mandicoria]

Humans because we literally have the ability and knowhow to render this rock cold and lifeless for the rest of eternity.

[Nilokeras]

That seems outside the bounds of the scenario, though. "No improvement in intelligence other than knowing the best way to kill us" still leaves a bacterium at zero intelligence.

Bacteria aren't animals. Hence the 'interpreting animals very conservatively' statement. The total biomass of soil and human microbiomes, even restricting the ledger to 'animals', is more than enough to finish the job.

[The Three Palins]

Humans because we literally have the ability and knowhow to render this rock cold and lifeless for the rest of eternity.

By unstockpiling all the nukes and using them deliberately to cause nuclear winter in south and north hemispheres, maybe. There is undersea life that would survive even the total freezing-over of the oceans, and underground life that would survive all the soil becoming tundra.

And even if every form of life, and the proteins that could give birth to new life, was destroyed, there would still be abiogenesis eventually. It happened once, eventually it would happen again. Radioactivity would subside, the sun would come back out, perhaps oxygen would have to run down due to reactions with volcanic emissions or land/sea minerals, but eventually the whole infestation of our pristine rock would begin over again.

I'll put in a plug for sentient plants. Territoriality would still be a problem, and struggle over resources, but there would be no war and government would be a minor thing involving bees.

[The Three Palins]

That seems outside the bounds of the scenario, though. "No improvement in intelligence other than knowing the best way to kill us" still leaves a bacterium at zero intelligence.

Bacteria aren't animals. Hence the 'interpreting animals very conservatively' statement. The total biomass of soil and human microbiomes, even restricting the ledger to 'animals', is more than enough to finish the job.

Humanity taken down by a particularly bitey plague of body and head lice?

[Mandicoria]

Humans because we literally have the ability and knowhow to render this rock cold and lifeless for the rest of eternity.

By unstockpiling all the nukes and using them deliberately to cause nuclear winter in south and north hemispheres, maybe. There is undersea life that would survive even the total freezing-over of the oceans, and underground life that would survive all the soil becoming tundra.

And even if every form of life, and the proteins that could give birth to new life, was destroyed, there would still be abiogenesis eventually. It happened once, eventually it would happen again. Radioactivity would subside, the sun would come back out, perhaps oxygen would have to run down due to reactions with volcanic emissions or land/sea minerals, but eventually the whole infestation of our pristine rock would begin over again.

I'll put in a plug for sentient plants. Territoriality would still be a problem, and struggle over resources, but there would be no war and government would be a minor thing involving bees.

Until you realize all of the pollution and waste caused by the radiation washing into the oceans; the irreversible climate change that's already in motion being made tenfold worse than intended; and the fact the atmosphere would be rendered toxic permanently from the constant waste and destruction. Yeah nah fam that's a cope. The most you'd get is bacteria lasting for a bit, and cave animals. But life in a large capacity will be rendered fucked on such a level that not even the big extinction events could match.

[Nilokeras]

Bacteria aren't animals. Hence the 'interpreting animals very conservatively' statement. The total biomass of soil and human microbiomes, even restricting the ledger to 'animals', is more than enough to finish the job.

Humanity taken down by a particularly bitey plague of body and head lice?

Death by mange and secondary infection and intestinal sepsis.

[Cetacea]

Humans because we literally have the ability and knowhow to render this rock cold and lifeless for the rest of eternity.

Um rendering our planet a cold and lifeless rock means humanity lost

[Heloin]

Humans because we literally have the ability and knowhow to render this rock cold and lifeless for the rest of eternity.

Probably not. We're not quite sure what would actually happen if say we set off every nuclear device ever but it'd probably be far worse for us then say the tube worms living at the bottom of the ocean. The sheer volume of the biomass that is in the oceans and/or arthropods makes a quick extermination impossible without having wiped ourselves out first most likely.

Humans because we literally have the ability and knowhow to render this rock cold and lifeless for the rest of eternity.

Um rendering our planet a cold and lifeless rock means humanity lost

Moral fucking victory.

[Cordel One]

Humans would take some losses on the first day, particularly from pets. Perhaps from birds if they know that to chase us in front of traffic is the best way. Rural areas would be seriously depopulated.

However, there aren't a lot of large animals capable of breaking glass, in the cities where most people live. We'd foil their murderous intentions by doing what we're best at: staying inside our houses. The military would deliver supplies, until supplies ran out, but people wouldn't be starving to death for maybe a year.

Within that time we'd kill them all, using conventional military means, and perhaps species-specific chemical and biological weapons. All of this assuming that micro-organisms cannot willfully evolve to pose maximum threat to us, in which case "animals" might win.

Humans wouldn't be able to survive without animals though.

You're right! And animals can live without humans, so either way we lose.

[Australian rePublic]

Humans would take some losses on the first day, particularly from pets. Perhaps from birds if they know that to chase us in front of traffic is the best way. Rural areas would be seriously depopulated.

However, there aren't a lot of large animals capable of breaking glass, in the cities where most people live. We'd foil their murderous intentions by doing what we're best at: staying inside our houses. The military would deliver supplies, until supplies ran out, but people wouldn't be starving to death for maybe

Within that time we'd kill them all, using conventional military means, and perhaps species-specific chemical and biological weapons. All of this assuming that micro-organisms cannot willfully evolve to pose maximum threat to us, in which case "animals" might win.

DO you still believe that after Covid-19 lockdown violation?

[Australian rePublic]

Humans wouldn't be able to survive without animals though.

You're right! And animals can live without humans, so either way we lose.

Actually, even if we discard domestic animals, many wild animals require humans for survival, particularly those who live in urban areas. Some animals, for example, feed on our garbage and would die without it. Birds rest on electrical wires, some spiders would die if we kicked them out of our homes. This is especially in the old world, where cities have been around longer, giving animals more time to evolve around us. If humanity goes extinct, most domestic animals go with us, and there'd probably be a few mass extinctions amongst wild animals

[Neanderthaland]

Animals. Together. Strong!

[Thepeopl]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nematode

These are worms, so animals.
They would kill us before any other animal would reach us. They already live inside us, our homes, our plants, our pets...
Good luck shooting things you can't see...

[The Three Palins]

Humans would take some losses on the first day, particularly from pets. Perhaps from birds if they know that to chase us in front of traffic is the best way. Rural areas would be seriously depopulated.

However, there aren't a lot of large animals capable of breaking glass, in the cities where most people live. We'd foil their murderous intentions by doing what we're best at: staying inside our houses. The military would deliver supplies, until supplies ran out, but people wouldn't be starving to death for maybe

Within that time we'd kill them all, using conventional military means, and perhaps species-specific chemical and biological weapons. All of this assuming that micro-organisms cannot willfully evolve to pose maximum threat to us, in which case "animals" might win.

DO you still believe that after Covid-19 lockdown violation?

We hardly notice anything when someone dies of Covid. It happens in a hospital, it's not bloody or violent. This is a whole other deal. People would be afraid to leave their houses for their own sake not just a few percent risk to some stranger.

[Thepeopl]

DO you still believe that after Covid-19 lockdown violation?

We hardly notice anything when someone dies of Covid. It happens in a hospital, it's not bloody or violent. This is a whole other deal. People would be afraid to leave their houses for their own sake not just a few percent risk to some stranger.

Since the house is already infested with animals, you would first have to escape...

[The Three Palins]

We hardly notice anything when someone dies of Covid. It happens in a hospital, it's not bloody or violent. This is a whole other deal. People would be afraid to leave their houses for their own sake not just a few percent risk to some stranger.

Since the house is already infested with animals, you would first have to escape...

I have a couple of spiders in my house. And they're way too smart to attack me.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Humans wouldn't be able to survive without animals though.

I mean we could survive.

Through what means? Cannibalism? Vegan diets?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Everyone: We're safe in our houses.

Ants:

[Thermodolia]

There are about 200 million insects per human on the planet.

Animals win, hands down.

Not if we nuke the planet

[Ethel mermania]

There are about 200 million insects per human on the planet.

Animals win, hands down.

Not if we nuke the planet

Debatable

https://www.livescience.com/32749-could ... inter.html

[Thermodolia]

Not if we nuke the planet

Debatable

https://www.livescience.com/32749-could ... inter.html

Well I guess we gotta nuke the moon and send it crashing into earth. That should do it

[Kowani]

Debatable

https://www.livescience.com/32749-could ... inter.html

Well I guess we gotta nuke the moon and send it crashing into earth. That should do it

I don’t think the physics of that work out.