In proposing "survival" (or the ability to survive) as the criterion for superiority, you (Norsefire) are presupposing a certain fundamental ontology which does not necessarily hold for all of the world's people -- and certainly not for non-humans. To illustrate this, I shall resort to an Aboriginal myth told amongst certain peoples of the Alice Springs region in Australia: (from A Place for Strangers, Tony Swain) The two parts of this myth convey markedly different scenarios: in the first, land is spread via human manifestations and allied with other peoples and lands and this is enduring, but as one is essentially bound to one's land, a depletion of resources may bring about an untimely death (of the "race," so to speak); in the second, places remain isolated and unfederated, interdependence vanishes (or never emerges) and there is always the risk of being consumed by one's enemies. The issue here is NOT to be or not to be, but how to be: "To be of land related but perhaps not to be as an individual life, or not to be of land related but to be of a sovereign land and as an embodied person." (T. Swain) We have opted for the latter; but the Aboriginal people amongst whom the myth circulates, as well as many other peoples and most (all?) non-humans, have opted for the former. The former is an ontology of Place and while survival is an aspect, the denizens are quite literally of the land and "think(ing) ahead, plan(ning) ahead, and understand(ing) the concept of "future"" are not foremost on their agenda. I am by no means suggeting that they do not do these things, just that these things are not their top priorities. Does that make them inferior? (Hint: NO!) Eh, I'm tired -- if none of that^^^ makes any sense, I'll fix it tomorrow.