Stefan Molyneux vs. The World (Humans are the Most Successful Organisms – Debunked)

Stefan Molyneux vs. The World (Humans are the Most Successful Organisms – Debunked)

Hello my fellow apes. Before getting to Stefan Molyneux, here’s
a quick update on the Debunked Kickstarter: all decks are now bolstered with nearly 100
cards, and here’s just a few examples of the most recently developed. The artist is incredibly talented, right? I mean, how cool is this Galileo Galilei design? Anyhow, there’s now just one week left to
go, and so if you want your apish hands on these cards, then now’s your chance to grab
them. Thank you. “So he’s going to say that human beings
are not the best in some ways, but my question is, why doesn’t he have a sea slug present
his information? Like, put the sea slug on the table, and have
the sea slug explain why UPB is wrong? […] Right now, man is the most successful
species by just about any metric, whatsoever. So, I would consider that one pretty much
asked and answered.” Towards the end of my recent debunk of Stefan
Molyneux’s universally preferable behaviour, I wrapped up by saying the following: “So,
IF you want me to make another video, you ought to leave a comment saying so”, and
by the gods that don’t exist, you’ve made your preference crystal clear. Now within my previous video, I consciously
avoided minutia in order to succinctly focus on Stefan’s primary argument – or largest
fire, if you will (“He said it IS the case that they’re wrong (“They’re objectively
wrong”) and so therefore they OUGHT to correct their beliefs (“They should correct their
beliefs. But as any undergraduate philosophy student
will tell you, this simply doesn’t follow (“Dude!”), but within this video I’m
to extinguish one of his smaller fires – that being, the assertion that man is the most
successful organism (“Man is the most successful organism”)… This is Stefan Molyneux vs. The World. Typically, I
like to keep my content concise, as time is precious, and I don’t want to waste yours…
but Stefan has a habit of accusing critics (including me) of strawmaning him (“So your
idea of an argument is a strawman […] it’s a literally strawman, right? […] instant strawman! […] Boom! Perfect strawman”). Given this, I’m going to play, and respond
to, the majority of Stefan’s response, rather than just the crux. And so, here we go: “And finally, we get
to Molyneux’s 5th proof, and it goes as follows:” “1) Organisms succeed by acting
on universally preferable behaviour. 2) Man is the most successful organism. 3) Therefore man must’ve acted most successfully
on the basis of universally preferable behaviour. 4) Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ. 5) Therefore, man’s mind must’ve acted most
successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour. 6) Therefore universally preferable behaviour
must be valid. “Premise one is again begging the question. In fact, it’s almost identical to the second
proof’s first premise – that all organisms require universally preferable behaviour to
live, and it carries all of the same problems. As for premise two–” Before moving on, notice
that Stefan completely ignores this criticism… I addressed this in detail in my previous
video, and so won’t do so again here, but I want to emphasis it because it’s important
to note that his argument is flawed for many more reasons than just the one I’m going
to focus on within this video… which we’ll get to now: “As for premise two – the
assertion that ‘Man is the most successful species’ – this is just childishly absurd,
because it’s arbitrarily assigning significance. What exactly are humans the most successful
at?” “Philosophy, science, conceptual reasoning,
abstract thought, art, music, literature, poetry, acting, singing…” Sure, humans are the most successful organism
in regards to the humanities (what a surprise), but as I was about to explain – to assert
that an organism’s success it dependent on such attributes is completely and utterly
arbitrary. Yeah – absolutely… I mean, when was the last time you saw chimpanzees
in an orchestra opening at the act, right? So, yeah – there are different levels of success,
and human beings are the most successful at such a wide variety of things, I don’t even
know how to explain this. Like, if you want to really understand, or
learn about philosophy, you kinda need to look at what you’re doing, rather than all
these abstractions to begin with. I’m an empiricist, and so you start with what
you’re doing. So he’s going to go in… like, I don’t know,
but this next bit is going to be like, giraffes are better at getting leaves from the top
of trees, which is actually false, because you can get a machine to get you– there are
machines that you can get right up there to harvest the stuff from the trees. There are robots that can pick fruit, and
even strawberries and grapes and so on… Yeah… when you want to really understand,
or learn about philosophy, you kinda need to look at what you’re doing, and not, say,
completely fabricate (let alone strawman) your opposition’s objections. When Stefan said “So he’s going to go in…
like, I don’t know”, that’s where he should’ve stopped, and played my response rather than
make it up. At no point did I say that giraffes are better
than humans at getting leaves from the top of trees, and yet, “This next bit is going
to be like, giraffes are better at getting leaves from the top of trees, which is actually
false.” … Well done Stefan, you’ve rebutted an
argument that I didn’t make. “Philosophy is not like massaging your step
mother’s foot”… Indeed, it’s not – and so, please, put
the massage oil down… “But anyway… so… so he’s going to say
that human beings are not the best at stuff, but my question is, why doesn’t he have a
sea slug present his information? Like, put the sea slug on the table, and have
the sea slug explain why UPB is wrong. Why doesn’t he have a chimpanzee do it? Why doesn’t he have a robot do it? Why doesn’t he have a piece of paper– a paramecium
do it? Why doesn’t he have one of his gut bacteria
come up and spread the word about how bad UPB is? No, he’s using his conscious mind, he’s using
his abstract thought, he’s using his presentation techniques, he’s using YouTube, he’s using
every single human facility to communicate that human beings are not successful… haha. How successfully would he be at rebutting
my argument, if he didn’t use any human capacities? Nah, I’m not going to make that joke… too
obvious. Alright, let’s see!” …Again… strawman. I have NEVER said that human beings are not
successful, and yet, “He’s using every single human facility to communicate that human beings
are not successful… haha”… And as for his point about me not employing
a sea slug to rebut his argument, I’m genuinely curious… does anyone find this compelling? Let me approach this obliquely – if a chimpanzee
was to tell another chimpanzee (via chimpanzee capacities) that chimpanzees are not the most
successful organism, would there be anything wrong with that? Would there be anything hypocritical or contradictory
about it? No, of course not! Likewise, when a human tells another human
(via human capacities) that humans are not the most successful organism, there’s nothing
wrong with that whatsoever. I didn’t employ a sea slug, because sea
slugs are not the most effective way to communicate with human beings – and that’s what I
was, and am, trying to achieve. “Alright, let’s see. “It’s not neck length, because the giraffe
is more successful than us in that area.” “No, the giraffe’s neck is longer.” Forgive me, I don’t want to keep interrupting,
but I’ve really got to hammer this home – if an organism’s success is to be judged
by its neck length, then giraffes ARE more successful than us. In fact, this would make them 18 times more
successful us, since the length of an average adult giraffe’s neck is 18 times longer
than the average adult human’s. Now, of course, insisting that an organism’s
success is dependent on its neck length is arbitrary and quite frankly ridiculous…
but that’s my point! Insisting that an organism’s success is
dependent on some quality of the brain (such as the capacity to conceptualise) is as arbitrary
as asserting that it’s depended some quality of the eye (such as the capacity to see ultraviolet),
some quality of the heart (such the capacity to pump oxygen), or even some quality of the
larynx (such as the capacity for echolocation)… it’s arbitrary. “It’s not population, because ants are more
successful than us in this area; it’s not age, because arctic whales are more successful
than us in this area; and it’s not reproduction, because rabbits are more successful than us
in this area. So what is it? Brainpower? How arbitrary.” “I don’t know that it’s that arbitrary. Human beings have the greatest capacity, even
if we just look at the sort of biological stuff – so, human beings have the greatest
capacity to control the environment to further survival, right? Which is why we can go hugely under water,
erh… hugely under water– very deep in Bathyscaphes, it’s why we can go up high mountains with
air packs, it’s why we can go into space, it’s why we can live in the arctic without
using fur, and so we have this amazing capa– why we have pressurised cabins and airplanes,
and so on. So we do have this incredible ability to adapt
the environment to suit our particular needs, and that has to be counted to some degree
of biological success, right? Right.” For the purpose of clarity, I want to take
us back to basics. What does it mean to say that something is
successful? Is, for example, this cup successful? To answer this, we need to know the purpose
of the cup – and since we’re its creator, we do – it’s to hold liquid. Thus, we can say that this cup is successful
because its purpose is to so hold liquid, and right now, it’s doing that pretty damn
well. But here’s the thing – courtesy of Darwin’s
evolution by natural selection, we now know that organisms are NOT imbued with a purpose
– the evidence is crystal clear: we were not created by a conscious entity, and so
we were not created with a purpose in mind. However, despite this, I appreciate that some
argue that nature has unconsciously imbued organisms with the purpose of surviving as
a species – and Stefan is evidently among them (“Yeah, it does have something to do
with survival”). Okay… survival as a species it is. Now, there are countless ways in which in
organisms survive; some have a massive population as to increase gene diversity; others have
an incredibly long life expectancy as to have more attempts at reproduction; others forge
symbiotic relations with other organisms; others hastily adapt to their environment;
and others hastily adapt their environment to them (“Human beings have the greatest
capacity to control the environment to further survival”). …Now putting aside whether or not humans
are the best organism at controlling their environment, my original point remains: with
there being countless ways in which organisms survive, it’s arbitrary to insist that one
is (or a handful are) the metric of an organism’s success. Honestly, it’s like Stefan has started with
his conclusion and is working backwards… hmm, in terms of survivability, what are humans
the best at? And how can I make that (or them) the rubric
of an organism’s success? “Why should we accept that success if defined
by how much brain-power an organism has? This isn’t just taking the biscuit–”
“No, because it allows you to control your environment to further your success, right? It allows you to build houses in cold temperatures;
it allows you to build cooling in hot temperatures; it allows you to build shelter in winds…
and, to a degree that animals can’t even conceive of, right? Yeah, it does have something to do with survival,
of course, right?” Yes, of course brainpower has something to
do with survival – and yes, it enables us to significantly control our environment,
but again, my objection is that organisms survive through countless methods, and to
state that one specific method is (or a handful of methods are) THE metric of success is arbitrary! “So, the other interesting question, in
terms of success, as far as I remember (I could be wrong) but human beings are the only
creatures to live on all areas of the world, right? I mean, you can talk about rabbits, but rabbits
are, you know, in a pretty narrow band of the world they could live in. Ants aren’t in the Antarctic, ironically enough. So, human beings, in terms of success, you
could say, human beings are the most widely spread organism that we know of. If you count people in space, and so forth
– I don’t know if there are, like, permanent undersea stations (there probably are). So first off, my criticism still remains – there
are many ways in which organisms survive, and for Stefan to focus on just the ones that
fit his narrative (such as an organism’s ability to adapt their environment and an
organism’s geographic distribution) is to arbitrarily assign significance. Again, he’s working backwards… Secondly, notice that Stefan uses the word
“creature” to make his point (“Human beings are the only creatures– creatures–
creatures to live on all areas of the world”) but uses the word “organism” in his conclusion
(“Human beings are the most widely spread organism– organism– organism that we know
of”) – this might seem pedantic on my part, but it’s not – because they mean
very different things. The word “creature” is a synonymy of “animal”,
and thus pertains merely to the animal kingdom, whereas the word “organism” refers to
all life forms, and thus pertains to animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. Thirdly, and this is (at least to me) particularly
funny – even if Stefan’s argument used the word “creature” he’d still be wrong! 71 percent of the Earth is covered in water,
and we humans don’t inhabit even one percent of it. The Killer Whale (to name but one example)
is distributed throughout the majority of Earth’s oceans – including Antarctica… and
so what this amounts to is that despite human beings significantly out-numbering Killer
Whales, the latter inhabits significantly more cubic centimetres. “Human beings are the most widely spread
organism that we know of” – nope, we’re not even the most widely spread mammal…
let alone creature, and definitely let alone organism. But yeah, there are ways in which you can
measure the success of human beings from just a biological standpoint, and, again… when
you’re using a lot of technology to argue that it’s arbitrary to say that there’s value
in technology when technology is the only thing that allows you to make that argument,
it seems a little specious.” And here we have yet another strawman… I didn’t say “it’s arbitrary to say that
there’s value in technology”, I said it’s arbitrary to say that an organism’s success
hinges on its capacity for technology, or its brainpower, or geographic distribution,
or biomass, or capacity for literature, etc. “So there’s a distinction between difference
in degree, and difference in kind. A difference in degree is more or less a difference
of pretty much the same thing. A difference in kind is completely different. So, think of two guys lost in the dessert. One guy has 100 dollars in his pocket, one
guy has 10 dollars in his pocket – that’s a difference in degree; they have a differing
level of money. One guy has a bottle of water, or water at
all, and the other guy has no bottle of water, no water at all – that’s a difference in
kind. One has water, one doesn’t have water (whereas
they have differing amounts of money). So if you look at the example provided before
of the giraffe, the giraffe has a long African hoop neck style neck, for sure. But that’s just a difference in degree, not
in kind, because human beings also have necks. He says, well, whales can live longer than
people, okay, that is a difference of degree, not of kind – because human beings live for
a long time, whales live for a longer time, it’s just an extension of something that already
is. If you look at the population of ants, well,
there are more ants than people… yes, but there are still numbers of people – the number
is higher, but the existence of life is simply a difference of degree in terms of numerical
number– of number, rather than of kind. So, if you’re talking of differences of degree
rather than kind, you’re missing the entire point of what it means to be a human being. Let me give you an example. So, imagine I said something like this: human
beings have flown to the moon, but those ants are not as good at it because their little
ant rockets only reach to the top of the tallest tree… haha. Or imagine if I said, human beings can write
the most astonishing poetry, haiku, sonnets, you name it… but, the sonnet of dung beetles… I mean, they’re good-ish, there just not that
as good as human beings. Or, Human beings can build incredibly complex
structures, multi-storey heating ventilation, elevator shafts – you know, all that kind
of stuff – but the home’s of beavers, while good, don’t have quite as good plumbing,
or HVAC systems, or, you know, some of their windows can open (which means they’re not
quite as energy-efficient), even though people get to breath semi-fresh air… you understand? Human beings in terms of stuff that I listed
earlier, like poetry, abstract thought, philosophy, concepts, scientific method, ethics, plays,
novels, you name it– there’s so much that human beings do that is a difference in degree,
not in kind.” Right… so now Stefan is saying that an organisms
success depends on how many things it excels at (or to use his terminology, how many things
it has a greater degree in) and the examples that he gives are “poetry, abstract thought,
philosophy, concepts, scientific method, ethics, plays, novels”. Again, this is arbitrary – and in this case
it’s not even strictly related to survival… To adequately address this I’m going to
once again use chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are better than humans (or have
a greater degree than humans) in many areas; their arboreal locomotion far exceeds ours,
they’re self-sufficient long before we are, and their short-term memory and processing
speed is significantly better than ours… I mean honestly, it’s a thing of magic! Professor Tetsuro Matsuzawa’s work, which
I’ve left a link to in the description, will blow your damn socks off – and so if
you have time, please do check it out. Anyhow, if I were so inclined, I could name
countless things that are predicated on short-term memory and processing speed, such as recalling
sequences, locating objects, spotting discrepancies and predicting trajectories, and then boast
that there’s so much that chimpanzees do that is a difference in degree, not of kind
– and this would be akin to what Stefan’s just done in reference to reflective processing. Or, indeed, I could do this with pretty much
anything… be it a giraffe’s neck, an eagle’s eye or a kangaroo’s cock… “To take the counter point you can say – ah,
well, unaided birds can fly but human beings can’t, and that’s a difference in degree,
and therefore if you only have flying unaided as the standard then birds are more successful
than human beings– it’s like yeah, but you can’t just take things in isolation (I mean
you can take things in isolation, but you’re wrong). So if you say, well, birds can fly unaided,
then you take away technology from human beings… but that’s like saying if you rip the wings
off a bird then it can’t fly unaided…” Another argument with himself… another argument
with himself. “Let’s look at another measure of success
– so, of course, success is in a conflict between two animals the animal that kills
or escapes the other animal is more successful. I mean clearly, that would have to be the
case, right? […] So let me ask you this: can you think–
again, allow man his full access to technology – can you think of any situation where a
man faces off against an animal, with all of his technology, and the man looses? Right? I mean, think of a machine gun and a bear,
right? I mean, think of a herd of elephants and an
airstrike–” Think of soap and ebola… or lemon eucalyptus and the typanosoma brucei…
you can drop a damn nuke on these organisms if you like, but they ain’t going anywhere. Anyhow, now Stefan’s focusing on another
way in which organisms survive – that being, by being at the top of the dominance hierarchy. Again, he’s arbitrarily assigning significance
as to support his preconceived conclusion… but in regards to this specific argument,
let me repeat what I’ve said numerous times to creationists; just because a species is
an apex predator (or on top of the food chain) that doesn’t mean that in terms of evolution
(or in this case, in terms of survival as a species) it’s more successful than its
prey. This seems unintuitive, I get that, but it’s
true – the gazelle is as biologically successful as the lion – they just use difference methods
to survive – one dominates the hierarchy, and the other reproduces more frequently and
avoids predators with incredibly fast reactions. Both methods work, and their being alive proves
it. “Right now, man is the most successful species
by just about any metric whatsoever. So, I would consider that one pretty much
asked and answered.” … So, I would consider that one pretty much
debunked! To recap, there are countless ways in which
organisms can, have, and do survive, but to focus on just one, or even a handful (such
as brainpower, geographic distribution and/or position on the dominancy hierarchy) is to
arbitrarily assign significance. Now the last thing I’ll say on this matter
is this: if the purpose of an organism is survive as a species, then at the very least,
I’d put phytoplankton above humans, since they are (and have been for billions of years)
at the BOTTOM of a food chain, and hence without them, all organisms that are predicated upon
them would almost certainly go extinct… and that includes humans. “Why doesn’t he have one of his gut bacteria
come up and spread the word about how bad UPB is?” You know, I may not have summoned my gut bacteria
to show the flaws in UPB, but guess what? Without organisms such as gut bacteria, all
of humanity’s technology would be for naught… if bacteria were to go extinct, we would shortly
follow. Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the
view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve
supported the channel via merchandise and PayPal. And I’ll leave with an overwhelmingly powerful
argument to consider: a card game’s success if defined by how many fallacy cards it has
within it, and so Debunked is therefore, of course, definitely, the most successful card
game ever, right? Right. Right? Right. Right…


  1. Post
    Christina Thompson

    i will say , and it may be that it was edited or in some way not you , but when i watched you on his website you came off as a snarky shit , and watching you on your site , my opinion of you has changed , i too do not share in mr molyneau's upb therom as a solid or ultimate psycological proof , not because he's wrong , but because of the nonviolent pacifistic nature of it , he is canadian , we forgive him his faults , as we would hope he would forgive us our americanism ….well me not you , but you understand

  2. Post
    Chriss RE

    Cockroaches could survive comet hitting the earth. Humans not so much.. Stefan is like this kid that tries to argue.. Well My Dads car has bigger Engine .. Well my dads car looks better.. Etc. Ok Ok.. The humans are the best at everything Cool Stefan here is a lollypop.

  3. Post
    Michael Dominic

    Humanity is the most successful species ever? Seriously??? Has Molyneux been paying the least bit attention to what our species is doing to our planet? We are the ONLY species ever evolved with the capacity and willingness to make our environment uninhabitable to our species as well as hundreds of thousands of others. We have been steadily destroying the world ecosystem since we evolved, and at an ever increasing speed ever since. Within the next 50 to 100 years we may get to the point that our entire civilization collapses with the result that the majority of our species will die out. Some success.

  4. Post
    eugene edwards

    wow. still got 6 minutes to view, but wanted to write you are a self important knob-job. debate him not sit with a pause button and be a critic. get a hair cut you skate boarder

  5. Post
    Aurelia Gray

    I would say that humans are the most successful organism in the world purely because if an organisms success is measured based off of its ability to survive and persist then humans are the only organism that currently have the capability to make themselves the last surviving organism. Basically humans could in theory devise a process to systematically destroy every area on the earth and turn it all unliveable for any organism, or humans could just do it accidentally because you know that works too. Then while all organisms on earth are dead humans can persist in space on a space station, then they can systematically kill off every other organism that was required to survive on that space station until it is only humans left with the bacteria in and on them, at which point humans can then sterilize every part of their body and internal organs, then enter a sterilized chamber with sterilized space suits and leave the space station then blow it up. And the last living organisms from earth would be starving, thirsty, limited oxygen humans with basically all their organs failing. So yeah humans could make themselves the most successful organism, and no other organism currently living on earth could do that so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to say humans are the most successful because humans can become the most successful organism.

    TL;DR humans could kill every other organism therefore humans are the most successful.

  6. Post
    Strange Combination

    In some ways, we ARE the most succesful organism. None other comes close to how we mold, control and accomodate the environment (and other species) to our needs. Furthermore, the trophic ladder goes from obscure consciousness to more lucid consciousness, by this token humans are the most succesful animal indeed. Now, in terms of PROLIFERATION or resilience we might not be number one, but this is unimportant once you can engineer reality and draw enourmous energy through technology. Nobody knows what we will be able to do in 1.000 years, if the demographic and ecological crisis is averted. Things that were unimaginable a century ago are commonplace. It's absurd yo deny our glory as a species, call it success ir however you want, we have become the masters and gods of the planet.

  7. Post

    but considering that the desire we cant find in all living things,from humans to bacteria and viruses,is to survive and reproduce isnt humans the most successful?If an ant could give birth to 4 ants at a time would they be so many?If chickens werent raised for food would they outnumber us?From my point of view an animal with severe physical disadvantages(no fur,claws,speed,small number of offspring per birth etc)managed to dominate the earth,managed to get out of the food chain,and started not to adapt to his environment but to adapt his environment to him.That sounds pretty succesfull to me,i mean we are the cinderellas of evolution.

  8. Post
  9. Post
  10. Post
  11. Post
    Dillon Keller

    Oh so humans are the best at things only humans can do? This guy's a fuckin idiot, holy shit, remind me to never watch any of his content ever

  12. Post
    Dillon Keller

    "You've rebutted an argument I didn't make" pretty much my experience with every theist I've debated

  13. Post

    Yeah right… his gut bacteria don't make part of him or what, where they cast to a parallel universe for the duration of the video? His gut bacteria as well as the rest of him is putting in some sincere effort to correct your logic errors Stephan, you use reductionism on the complexity and diversity that compose a human being.
    Getting a robot or a machine to pick leaves only proove that certain machines are better than humans and or jirafs in that aspect, a creation or accomplishment can be better than their creator (god is sayd to be better than the humans/minds it came from), but neither creations, nor accomplishments equate their source, in this particular case, a leave picking machine is not a human. I understand that you're trying to say that human ingenuity has led us to create things that surpass many organisms in many aspects; but not only we don't surpas them in everything, there is also a conceptualization to be made about success itself; in wich regard, how you determibe this, how you measure it?
    IMO it's pretencious from your part to advance such affirmation, and independently of the last, we are still on a young stage of scientific development; there is still a lot to be learned and discovered, and the mentality you're pushing forward is one of the things that get in the way of progress and innovation, by clossing the loop and pretending we know/can do it all.

  14. Post
    da ba

    Two organisms sit down to have a conversation the organism on the left says bacteria is the most dominant being on Earth the organism on the right (askyou're making the argument) with a piercing stare the organism on the left unfazed replies (yes) the superior human then gets up and exits the room

    The left one looks at this and says (what) (;:)

  15. Post
  16. Post
  17. Post
  18. Post
    Jimmy Johnston

    More precisely, 'ebola' is a psyop. By RedsilverJ. Banbury is Bunbury…

  19. Post

    remind me of a college professor I was listening to a while ago, he asked a few of his students some questions about whether they would save a baby or save another organism from Extinction. Included two species of bacteria and almost everybody in the class said they would rather save the baby than the bacteria, he said that congratulations they are now responsible for the extinction of the human race as the humans cannot survive without that type of bacteria that got to help them processed food. He did this with several other organism pointing out the relational dependencies between different organisms on the hierarchy and how humans are dependent on so many other organisms that even with all of our technology and our ability to manipulate the environment around us that we would be helpless if those organisms went extinct and yet or more than happy to give a baby a few more months at most of life even if it means ending humanity as a species as a side effect because people didn't take the time to understand how we depend on each other as organisms.

  20. Post
  21. Post
  22. Post
  23. Post
    Kurt Krienke

    The arrogance Stefan displays coupled with his non-understanding of the subject he claims a superior understanding of impresses upon me the distinct suspicion that his arrogant behavior serves as a strategy to protect him from having to grapple with the simple fact that he has lost the debate.

  24. Post
  25. Post
    Joseph De-haan

    His language is all over the place and his knowledge of science non existant. Technology is his big thing. He means tool use.

  26. Post
  27. Post
  28. Post
    Michael Graff

    "Can I think of anytime where humans square off against animals and we lose?" Ants. Ants always win.

  29. Post
    K Connell

    Without humans, every single organism on earth would thrive.
    Animals know how to take care of their environment.

  30. Post

    Ironically, considering how much weight Stefan puts onto the brain, octopi and crows arguably have a greater learning capacity than humans, and Chimpanzees have better short term memory. So humans aren't even intellectually superior in all faculties.

  31. Post
  32. Post
    Svend Tang

    You just have to build the machine which is extremely cumbersome.. The giraf goes to tree and eats the leaves..

  33. Post
    Svend Tang

    I thought Molynux really was smart but he's really so human egocentric that it's close to stupidity..

  34. Post
    Svend Tang

    I'm a human racist but I'm not so arrogant as Molynux..were pretty good at our thingy but that's not a good value statement. It can only be a value statement amongst humans and human value hierarchy.. We might not even include our cousins apes because they are stil very different.

  35. Post
  36. Post
    Art istic

    Maybe theoretically, because of genetic engenheering, but not yet, not even with robotics, keep being logic, rationality really rules.

  37. Post
    J. A. Greene

    I didn't know much about this Stefan character before today, but he seems like the kind of guy who'll play a chess game against himself and declare himself the best chess player… because he beat himself in chess.

  38. Post
  39. Post
    John Forde

    Stephan really is simplistic. Humans have the ability to change the environment so much so as to kill the species and leave cockroaches to inherit the earth…

  40. Post
    Val WyvernBoy

    Here's a debunk for Stephen's idea that humans are most successful because they can control their environment.
    Ants and Termites. Both of these can construction habitations and buildings which are continental sized in comparison to them. They are able to control temperature, oxygen levels, humidity and pH levels of their habitats in a precise level without the need of tools like humans need. Not only that, plenty of things humans did because of "brain power" have been done by ants way before we learned to bang rocks together, these being:
    Farming: Some species of ants learned to use other organisms for their success, such as aphids, caterpillars and some fungi
    Slavery: from parasitic Queen that'll sneak into a nest and kill off the original Queen, taking control of the nest, to a species literally called Slaver Ants, which kidnap members of other nests and force them to work for them
    Long Distance Complex Communication: using various types of pheromones, they are able to live information in specific areas which give specific signs that'll either attract or repel ants with different intents
    Waste Disposal: Keeping their nest clean is essential, so they employ animals such as springtails and place all of their waste in one room for detrivore animals to decompose them and remove the waste.
    Military: ants evolved so there are different ranks in their "military" positions, workers, warriors and some even having super ants that do the heaviest lifting and killing if need be.
    I could go on- but these are three things that humans have done, but ants have done for years in a far more efficient manner.

  41. Post
    Marty Maiden

    What organism(s) changed the face of the earth more than trees and other vegetation? Without their rise, and their byproduct(oxygen), humans most likely wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be enough oxygen in the atmosphere for us to breathe. Talk about changing the environment!

  42. Post
  43. Post
    Joslyn Mott

    As a human, I believe Stefan Molyneux is full of shit. Oh my Sagan, I cannot stand him, it's not that he cannot see his own fallacies, it's that he refuses to.

  44. Post
  45. Post
    Bamber Banbury

    Stefan should meet a hairy platinum blonde white supremacist who would show arbitrarily why he is superior since he is whiter due to more of the white stuff like lots of platinum blonde hair whereas poor Stephan is bald. By Allah Stephan stop using arbitrary mechanisms in your arguments.

  46. Post

    Human beings are the most successful at floating their own boat, everything that he listed was all fluffing our own feathers, a way of celebrating the eternal “ LOOK AT ME” arts. A house cat would excel at surviving in Stephan’s back yard for longer than he would and would in fact , flourish. Yet it doesn’t “think who it is “ for lack of a better phrase.^* Stefan. ( I always spell it the other way, my apologies.)

  47. Post
    Ethan Erkiletian

    I do hope that this interaction you've had with Steph has made clear to you what a psuedo-intellectual he is.

  48. Post
    Garrett Guitar

    Which species can detect and avoid the consequences of natural and cataclysmic events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, solar flares, meteorites, etc?

  49. Post
    Roq Steady

    Molyneux failing to understand language… "A glass is successful full stop" meaningless! "A glass is a successful design for drinking water" coherent! … "The world is big full stop" meaningless! "the world is big compared to an ant" coherent! The misunderstanding arises because often the standard is implied, not explicitly stated. When we say "elephants are big" what we really mean is that "elephants are big compared to most other animals".

  50. Post
    Isaac Larson

    This has become an argument about how to correctly argue. Nobody can be right about this stuff, humans are dumb asf

  51. Post
    Devin Millican

    The fact that y'all would hone in on this utterly insignificant aspect of the argument isn't productive. I'll have to go back and watch his initial response to your first "UPB Debunked" video to see how he responds, though, because if what y'all are debating now was basically the focal point of his rebuttal, then he doesn't appear to have a good defense. And if that's the case, you would have done better to simply point that out in a short 30-second response video and leaving it alone, as opposed to spending another 40mins arguing over what constitutes "success".

  52. Post
    Devin Millican

    Conversely, if what constitutes "success" was merely a side-point in HIS rebuttal, the fact that you would hone in on this insignificant issue is a little suspicious. Nevertheless, I'll see if I can find his initial response.

  53. Post

    Viruses and bacteria as well as tardigrades are definitely more successful. There's billions more and they can survive longer. Tardigrades can live in space. Viruses and bacteria have won many battles against mankind and continue to do so.

  54. Post

    Look at Stephan trying to make a scientific argument with philosophy.
    What is the objective measurement of brain power? Can we determine a measurement of brainpower that is accurate and consistent? How do you measure control of an environment? How do you define an environment, or the change of such things?

    With such a poorly formed argument, even the strawmen he creates still disprove his own point. It's kind of sad.

  55. Post
    Theo Retically

    The entire point of Stefan can be reduced to "The human brain is by far the
    most developped brain of all animals and helped us conquer the world to become the dominant species." which is totally right.
    What a nonsensical discussion, I love your reasoning usually RR but againts Molyneux you disappoint me.
    I got shown videos of racist and xenophobic comments of Molyneux incompatible with the secular natural law philosophy he stole and sells as his UPB.
    Imo you should better demask that inconsistency of him to legit secular ethics instead of uselessly arguing against humans being the dominant species…
    Still a fan and will watch on, keep it up, become even more rational and dont trust false dillemmas as Hume's law or armchair philosophers. Better study law. 😉

  56. Post
    Ethan Hess

    On your point about Ebola, since it’s a virus it isn’t an organism, Stefan’s argument about showdowns basically says that in some situations a non-organism can beat a human. Also apply a showdown where surviving something other than the organism is the requirement, like getting hit with a nuke or being in space for 100 years, or getting hit by a meteor. Tardigrade’s got you beat, and so do a ton of other smaller organisms. It’s arbitrary to say winning a fight between the two makes an organism more successful, because if you did a 1 on 1 between a bear and a rat, the bear would win. But, if you did a fight between every bear at once and every rat at once the rats would absolutely win. And how would you use that method to compare organisms that would just ignore each other, like a whale and a tardigrade? What about stalemates? A hummingbird can’t kill an elephant shrew, and an elephant shrew can’t kill a hummingbird.

  57. Post
  58. Post
    Isaac Keatts

    I'd say a virus is by far more successful for survival, adapting, and manipulating its surroundings then humans if going by organisms

  59. Post
  60. Post

    I think you guys did not get what Stefan was trying to say! He's talking realistically not philosophically! Yes humans are the most successful species. And the points he listed are not arbitrary because this is simply life.. I'll explain myself lets see the Ebola example u mentioned; well true Ebola has the highest mortality rate but there will come a day when this is just something from the past.. we are advancing technologically and in every other aspect in life. There was a time when HIV was a deadly disease now its just a chronic one! Stefan was trying to say that your giraffe example is merely a difference in degree not that of kind and so it doesn't really matter because we can still beat that with our technology. We are the most successful species because we manipulated our environment to suit us. Yes naturally chimpanzees have better cognitive skills but humans can build computers that are more capable than a chimpanzee! Thus we are more successful.

  61. Post
  62. Post
  63. Post
    Madax Omagadam

    This guy is really stressful to listen to. He presupposes everything and makes it out to be obvious.

    "just look at the lay of the land, we're obviously on a disc. Just c'mon it's obvious"

  64. Post
    John Gleeman

    I dunno, ants outweigh humans and there's far more of them then there are humans! XD

    EDIT: Glad they brought this up. :3

  65. Post

    You also have to measure the usefulness of an organ like the brain against its caloric cost (which is massive), or other drawbacks (like the fact human infancy is much longer than other animals because the brain takes a while to develop even after birth.) The fact that brains like ours only evolved once, that shows that the evolution of a human brain is not that important to evolutionary survival or success. Whereas an organ like an eye or a circularatory system which had evolved independently many times, obviously is extremely valuable to guarantee the success of many forms of life.

  66. Post
    Aek Sinsang

    When a millennial limey mangina can criticize smart people, but isn’t a big person enough to debate them head on 😉 your channel is good for laughs

  67. Post
    Aek Sinsang

    When a millennial limey mangina can criticize smart people, but isn’t a big person enough to debate them head on 😉 your channel is good for laughs

  68. Post
    Miles Thales

    SM talks about human success, but he ignores that no other creature or organism is capable of destroying itself like humans are. A sea slug might not have a good singing voice, but then it didn’t construct atomic bombs and build enough of them to destroy the sea slug species. How successful are we as a species when we are all sitting on a bomb?

  69. Post
    Ryder Steel

    Well, gotta give this guy credit. Aye, humans are amongst the most successful organisms on this planet. This Molyneux personifies the saying: "A stopped clock is right twice a day."

  70. Post
  71. Post
    Robert Yahir

    Please do a video debunking my former religion Hinduism. Their are almost none by atheists debunking it. Be brutal offer no logical escape. I thank you.

  72. Post

    Hey, I think I'm going to define succes as which species has been around the longest.
    How succesfull are humans now?

    Why does this guy define ''succes'' as something like writing a sonata and such while also contributing this standard of succes to other animals? It doesn't make sense.
    Are humans the most succesfull organisms? It depends on how you define succes and the context you're looking at.

  73. Post
  74. Post
  75. Post

    I still believe that humans are the most successful organisms. The only thing you really conveyed is that success is subjective.

  76. Post
  77. Post
  78. Post
    retard slayer

    Pretty successful at reducing biodiversity and destroying the ecologic system that nourishes it. At least we have computers to watch people brag about being successful.

  79. Post

    Success is reliant on an objective. If the objective is to have a long neck, Giraffes are very successful. If the objective is to be good at Prose Human beings are successful. The entire Humans are the most successful however relies on an assumption anyway. It's only logically consistent if you believe that each living organism wants to be successful in the things that are their characteristics. But we are not born into this world knowing that we desire to be great Poets for instance. So therefor If you believe in God wouldn't your argument be God is Successful in his building of Animals. This brings up back to the Watchmaker fallacy.

  80. Post
  81. Post
    Anthrop illogical

    This channel owner is immature and narrow minded. In his ignorance he's doesn't see the bigger picture of Stefan Molyneux, Fredomain, the future of society, peace and freedom. This channel owner's actions are part of the evil(the state/government/ sociopathy) that enslaves society. If this channel owner had any moral integrity he would be putting his efforts into helping in the fight against true evil, not being a tool used in its support/ propagation.

  82. Post
    Bruce Wayne

    Molyneux has declared himself on Twitter, to be this periods Aristotle. He has also declared himself the most influential philosopher of our generation.

  83. Post
    james Tolliver

    does anyone else find Stefan's arguments so distant from actual reasoning and so disconnected from the actual points being made that its hard to follow a word he says sometimes

  84. Post
  85. Post
  86. Post
    Anish Poddar

    The most irritating thing about a philosopher is that you can present all the stats you want in favor of your case, most or all of which will be factually correct, and they will simply sit back and point out that all those stats were interpreted through the lens of a subjective and arbitrary value judgement, and thus do not prove your point. They take the ground away beneath your feet, so you have nothing to put on it in the first place.

    That said, I'm quite happy to be the irritant.

  87. Post
  88. Post
    Taj adil

    Stefan is kind of retarded, I’m 15 and I saw through everything he said, he has no idea what he’s doing and is very defensive, very little to no thought went into most if not all his “arguments”

  89. Post
    Walking D-day

    I first found Molyneux in « the truth about ( some historical) event » series.
    Then I went on to his channel and soon realised he’s a crackpot.

  90. Post

    Reminds me of George Carlin: "Save the planet? The planet is fine, the people are fucked" ( )
    Being at the top of the food chain is nice. But this means you are the one of the most fragile species around, if those below you go, you go too.

    No wonder it's bears, lynxes, wolves, lions who are the most vulnerable species.

  91. Post
    Eric Leftwich

    You can't be considered the 'most successful species' at things that are only practiced within your species. That is like saying the first lawyer was the "world's most successful lawyer".

  92. Post
    Another Dave

    "Honestly, it's like Stefan has started with his conclusion and is working backwards."

    NO! Not the intellectual powerhouse that is Stefan Molyneux?! Please, say it ain't so!

  93. Post
    D. E.

    No, humans are not the most successful organism and never have been. Bacteria are the most abundant organism or life form on earth and they have been since life began. That is an inconvenient fact for evolutionists. Why would the most successful organism on earth evolve into a less successful organism? All organisms are less successful than bacteria, but supposedly bacteria evolved. It goes against everything Darwin hypothesized.

  94. Post
    alon rimon

    The moment a smart man is able to show the left as the fools the they really are the left starts making dumb movies like this one …:)
    A no doubt same idiots will follow blindly to make themselves feel smart by association … funny – attaching yourself to sjws and thinking that makes you smart .
    Typical leftism !

  95. Post

    I am just pondering. Maybe the metric for most successful species/organism, it should be something like this:
    "Most potential to continue to survive for the longest amount of time".

    What do you guys think? With this metric isn't Humans the most successful species on earth?

  96. Post
  97. Post
    S Green

    This had me thinking of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. The "most successful" organism (or creature); the "greatest being".

    What do these mean?

  98. Post
  99. Post
    Abhishek Upadhyay

    So, if someday Muslims are able to convert every human to Islam then Muslims as a group would be more successful than others.
    And if after converting everyone to Islam the human species starts to degrade because of inbreeding would we still call Islam the most successful?

    There are a number of ways in which other species live in social arrangements and us humans only have very few and rather fragile system of societies for eg.democracy and communism, the point is there isn't just one metric which is pre decided between species based on which success and failure to a specie can be attributed.

  100. Post
    Abhishek Upadhyay

    the point is there isn't just one metric which is pre decided between species based on which success and failure to a specie can be attributed.
    Stefan's point is more like " humans Excel at being humans and that criteria of excelling to be a human also applies to giraffes."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *