Neglected by Nature

This was so cool to read. I've definitely thought about things similar to this before, and this piece proposes a very intriguing scenario. I really liked the use of questions throughout, which really makes the reader think and allows them to interact with the writing. All of the analogies you made illustrated a great point about how we view animals and how we might be viewed if the situations were reversed.

I think you could elaborate more, maybe pick one animal and describe how their society would differ from ours currently. This would really allow the reader not only to look at how life would be different for humans, but also how the world would differ.

Aside from that, I have no suggestions. Great work on this piece, have a great day!

Hi wafflewolf!

Just stopping by to give a quick review on this.

Interesting premise that you've taken this with literally swapping the roles of other animals and humans. I think that;s clever, and you've got a solid foundation to build off of! Some of my thoughts as I read through this:


"when the time came for humans to evolve, we got passed up. Instead, another group was selected of the intelligent species, be it dolphins, ravens, or chimpanzees." Now, I think this sentence could be structured better so as to give a sense of actual evolutionary balances that come into play. Since it wasn't a bingo, humans have now evolved from the great apes, but a slow continual progress that's never stopping, and also that we had other hominid species along the way : I think it would make for a more compelling start if you wanted to talk about evolution perchance favoured the dolphins to become the complex-thinking with rational interests, in the way humans are right now.


"but who’s to say we couldn’t have been ignored in the evolutionary selection?" Again, here I am a little iffy on the sentence "ignored by selection" because every species is facing some sort of selection pressure all the time. Like I'd mentioned, it would better to say evolution favoured the kinds of rationality in another species.

So , int he next few paragrpahs I like your speculative ideas. But this is also an opening to be more creative with the process and instead try to imagine a world which is quite unlike ours, because say these other animals had a different priority set. Would zoos be a thing? What kinds of games would human kids play? Would we get different diseases?

"The real question, however, is: would we survive? Would our adaptability and intelligence save us from extinction, or would our brittle bones do us in? "
I feel like this sentence contradicts your initial premise that humans will not have evolved the way we currently are, right now. So, in that sense, I don't think it fits to call into play our current ideas of current humans' adaptability and logic.

"outsmarting prey to hunt and being a source of terror for the evolved race." I like how you bring in another scenario of humans having evolved into predators. Far fetched, but a solid exploratory premise, nevertheless. The only thing I want to point here, is your usage of "evolved race". Because you're talking about a different species, the word would have to be species.

This is well written, and I hope you enjoy editing it. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.

Hey! I really liked your essay. But I'm wondering, what was the prompt. It would be a lot easier to review if I knew what your premise was.

Your speculations are all positive. I know the point was that you hoped dogs would do a better job than we do of ruling the world, but it would probably help if you speculated about what they might do worse. You did speculate about them doing the same things, like being racist, and you did speculate a bit about Alpha males controlling the government, but it wasn't very in depth.

How did you pick this topic, or was it assigned? I feel like it would help if you explained why you felt dogs would rule the world better, maybe by discussing all of the traits of a dog that are not so prevalent in humans. Also, what is the impact of your reasoning? It's an interesting question, but why does it matter? Is it to show humans that they are performing their tasks poorly? To encourage them to live up to their own belief, that they are better than the animals?

Another important question is, how do you think dogs would look if they evolved? Would they stand up straight? They couldn't be the same creatures we know today. If we evolved from ape-like creatures, we changed in terms of appearance as well as intelligence, for reasons of survival. Would dogs even be able to last in their current form?

Your essay is well thought out, but I think its lacking some important detail. It wouldn't matter if they could make the world a better place than it is now unless they could actually survive it. Some dogs are violent. What if they killed each other off before they got the chance to do anything? Explain more why and how they would survive to make this better world.

Good job and good luck on your essay. I hope I made it in time.

Salutations!

Considering that this is an essay consisting mostly of hypotheticals and suppositions, there really isn't much I can "review" in terms of content. Oh, I guess there's the typo "preform" in the second-to-last paragraph, but that's it. Hmm, maybe I'll get some inspiration closer to the end of the review! In the meantime, I'll join in on the speculation and exercise my combined love of fantasy and science. This'll be fun!


Paragraph 1: What if wolves were selected instead of humans?

Hah! I'm loving this already. Literally this past Friday, a classmate told me about a short story or novel George R. R. Martin (at least, I hope it was him, since I can't remember the title to verify) had written in his younger days. It was about how humanity had become technologically advanced enough to "uplift" intelligent species like chimpanzees and dolphins to sentient level (when they later encounter extra-terrestrials, they're asked who uplifted them, and when they say nobody, culture shock occurs).

In any case, while wolves are certainly intelligent, I doubt they'd be selected for civilisation, since their brains aren't large enough in proportion with their bodies. Wolves are my favourite animals, though, so trust me, it's with immense regret that I say that. I agree with Martin, as chimpanzees and dolphins are a safe bet (although any other primate or cetacean would also need to be considered), but I wouldn't discount ravens or octopuses.


Paragraph 2: What would humans be like in such a world?

Oh, that's an easy one! Look at our taxonomical family and you'll have your answer: we'll live in complex social communities, display a high degree of intelligence, for a mere animal (we'd still use rudimentary tools), and follow an omnivorous lifestyle - our diet would depend on our habitat, which could still be as varied as the habitats in which you'd generally find monkeys and apes, be it scrub, mountain, rainforest, etc. Humans would obviously be found in zoos, but we'd be too intelligent and aggressive to domesticate, since you can't just assert yourself as the leader of our hierarchies and expect obedience. Even if it was possible, humans would be no more envious of their domesticated counterparts than any animal we've observed so far. They'd want freedom, mostly.


Paragraph 3: Would wolves become corrupted?

Hmm, at this point, I should point out that "dogs" are largely unnatural. All known dog breeds are descended from domesticated wolves, and the whole process of domestication requires four qualities: the animal must be friendly, feedable, fecund, and family-oriented (credit goes to CGP Grey's YouTube channel). Wolves are friendly, despite being predators; they can be fed easily enough, if you don't have trouble with hunting; their generations are very short when compared to humans and they breed easily; and their social structure follows a particular hierarchy that values familial relationships and a clear authority. This is why they could be domesticated, and why dogs are so loyal - we are their alphas. When they beg, be it for attention or food, they're in reality using a very low risk hunting technique. Humans have family values, sure, but we'd be trouble to domesticate for the same reason all other primates are. It's still possible, though! After all, cats happened, and they're basically tiny lions and tigers.

I digressed somewhat. Wolves were bred for specific purposes, and this is why we have so many different dog breeds - they were each bred with different goals in mind. Humans don't breed with other humans, so it's safe to assume wolves would stay wolves. Dogs must be some horrible, disgusting mockery of their species that would make many individuals sick to their stomachs.

As for their natures, just look at wolves and dogs already. They can be pretty accepting of outsiders, sure, but they can also be fiercely territorial and aggressive. Racism and any kind of xenophobia (look beyond just hatred of foreigners, here, and apply it to anyone who's different) is bound to arise in any intelligent species where isolation and ignorance co-occur. That's a general trend, but it'd depend more on the sentient wolves' culture than anything else. Err, gender bias probably won't be a thing, though, since alpha males and females both nurture the pups, defend the pack, and lead the hunt. It's a partnership all the way.


Paragraph 4: Lifestyle

All sentient beings will develop some form of recreation. Even animals enrich themselves, so a civilised race, which is by default an apex species, would absolutely have things like sport and art and philosophy and religion. What exactly these are would differ, and I could elaborate on those, but that's basically a topic on its own. What I can tell you, though, is that their lifespans would become extended and their litter sizes would decrease to one or two pups at most. This is a constant among long-lived, intelligent species, so wolves would be no different there. It's because increased survivability leads to decreased compensatory measures.

For a society to be built, you need to be able to build things, and wolves can't do that, which is another reason why they'd be unlikely to be selected for sentience. This is why I mentioned ravens and octopuses earlier - they're also intelligent, just like chimpanzees and dolphins, but they can also solve puzzles and manipulate objects. Theorhetically, that means the right factors could influence them to evolve and become even more sentient.


Paragraph 5: Internet

Because we have only ourselves to study, any extrapolations we make and apply to other hypothetical sentient species are likely to resemble our history as a race. Nevertheless, certain logical conclusions can be made that are universal. Elements will remain the same throughout any universe, so all species will discover the same elements with the same properties (don't go pedantic on me and mention elements such as iridium, of which there are no naturally occurring deposits on Earth, since I don't mean to be that technical, here). Therefore, it make sense that they'd make the same technological discoveries as humans, though not necessarily at the same time, in the same order, or in the same way. Whether they'd develop the internet, as we have it, I can't say, but they would most definitely invent some form of telecommunication once they have progessed sufficiently. As for the use they'd have for it, that'd depend entirely on their culture, so it's up to the author to decide. Assuming they'd advance sufficiently for survival to become almost banal, I'd wager yes, they would find entertainment on the internet.


Paragraph 6: Would wolves rule the world better than us?

Dogs wouldn't, no, since they wouldn't exist and are too impractical in any case. "Loyalty" is only valued because we bred them to defend us with their lives, and their very lives centre around making us happy. Remove us from the equation, and that would never happen. Humans are fanciful creatures, always anthropomorphising what they oughtn't to, and dogs are one of those things. Quite simply, there's no point wondering about whether dogs would do a better job.

As for the sentient wolf race, keep in mind that packs splinter when leadership is poor, rivals come and assume leadership, in-fighting results in displacement of alphas, rival packs chase others away in competition for hunting grounds, etc. Humans have a very skewed notion of canine "loyalty", and though betrayal doesn't exist in these noble animals' minds yet, I'm sure it will come to be eventually, even if to a lesser extent. Also keep in mind this "loyalty" could be exactly what gives rise to the hate. Think about how many religions and cultures and attitudes that humans have consider themselves "better" than others, and encourage loyalty to that group. Wolves could easily develop the same mentality, and, in fact, their case could be worse, because they'd be even more nationalistic.

Humans are curious and seek to understand more about their environment. Ignoring all the other flaws and strengths we have, that alone makes us pretty good, as far as civilised races go.


That's it for the content! I said I might have some commentary on the way you presented the essay itself, and I do! I'll cover it very briefly.

So, I noticed you used "valuing good boys and good girls who are loyal to each other", in more or less those words, in both the third and last paragraphs. It was probably unintentional, but reusing a descriptive device like that is already bad form. Doing so in the same essay is unimaginative and bland, from a critical point of view. I'm not saying that's what you or this piece are, but I'm just saying that's what some might think.

Your view on the whole scenario was definitely way too optimistic. It's certainly good that you considered the matter, but nah, any other sentient race is bound to have done things just as nasty and mean as we have, to varying degrees. Perhaps you could apply some logic in future essays? That might sound extraordinarily rude, but it's not. You asked a lot of questions, but you didn't answer any of those or give an opinion. You mentioned at the very end what you hoped would be the case, but this should rather have been a discussion about the possibilities and your take on them. In that sense, I feel you actually missed the point of a speculative essay.

Oh, and then there's the final matter of dogs being an impossibility outside of a universe where they are a submissive species. I know, I know, I've been mentioning this throughout the review, but I can't stress enough that the world's beloved "doggos" are a joke, evolutionary speaking. (Also, we didn't even do a very good job of evolving them, if we look at the many chronic conditions many dog breeds must face.) Wolves are where it's at, when it comes to canines.


To conclude, I enjoy that you tackled such a challenging topic! There's tons of discussion to be had about it, and if you like, you should go over to the debate section of the site and start a thread there. Feel free to tag me, if you do! You can respond with your own opinions in a comment on this review, but we can't use review comments to conduct an extensive conversation.

Anyway, I hope your essay received decent marks! Good luck with any future papers, but remember to think critically and discuss your views, rather than only making suppositions.

~ Hunter