I'm Better than You

[Nathaniel Grey]

Recently in my monthly loot crate, *plug*, I got a CD about DC villians. One section, in particular, discussed different villians driving forces for being bad. I believe it was Geoff Johns who began divulging how Lex Luthor was a good person before Superman came along. He was an icon in Metropolis. The man built everything and gave the citizens of Metropolis whatever they needed. The only thing Luthor required was recognition of genius. He was a man who was accustomed to always looking down on people. Then Superman pops up and "in his first meeting with Luthor says "If you need me all you have to do is look up." " And for the first time in Luthor's life there was someone, rather something, that no matter what he did he could never surpass. Plainly put, Superman is Better than Luthor.

Now the idea of accepting that one race is superior to another is a hard concept to swallow. I'm not referring to different races among us humans (I group all of us together), but to different beings. Take the X-men for example. Magneto believes Mutantkind to be better than humans. Up until recently I would always argue that point, but if I'm starting go "Yeah... you are better...Shit!" My reasoning goes back to the Luthor and Superman comparison. Of course Luthor outsmarts Superman almost 10 to 1 but Luthor couldn't outsmart the kryptonian version of himself. Meaning the Kryptionian version of Luthor could do all the things Luthor can do plus more. It's that "more" that separates one being from another.

This doesn't mean I believe Loki is right when he says is humans place to be ruled. Naw. Nor does it mean that when two races fight each other that the superior one will win. It just means that some creatures are better than others.

So what do you think? Are some races superior to others? Or are we, for the most part, equal?

 

[Queen Michael]

I'd say that Wolverine is superior to pretty much anybody, even in his current state.

And yeah, humans are superior to meerkats. Meerkats are superior to cockroaches. And so on.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Personally, I don't think superiority between species should be judged by being able to do cool stuff, having advanced technology, or even IQ, but by having transcended the inherent flaws of humanity, for lack of a better word. I consider Superman and Captain America to be superior not because of their power, but because of their moral integrity, wisdom, and willingness and ability to use their gifts to make things better. I don't consider the Asgardians to be superior because while they have all sorts of cool powers, technology, and science, they're still just as flawed and susceptible to corruption as we are.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

I don't consider the Asgardians to be superior because while they have all sorts of cool powers, technology, and science, they're still just as flawed and susceptible to corruption as we are.

Yes Asgardians are just as flawed as humans. But! They also got powers. This isn't about what we personally feel is better. Everyone has a different definition of better so there would never be an end to the argument. I'm looking at the base creature and saying that this one is better than this one. Many more humans would choose to be gods than gods would choose to be humans. There is value in both but one clearly has more benefits.

 

[Verlander]

Personally, I don't think superiority between species should be judged by being able to do cool stuff, having advanced technology, or even IQ, but by having transcended the inherent flaws of humanity, for lack of a better word. I consider Superman and Captain America to be superior not because of their power, but because of their moral integrity, wisdom, and willingness and ability to use their gifts to make things better. I don't consider the Asgardians to be superior because while they have all sorts of cool powers, technology, and science, they're still just as flawed and susceptible to corruption as we are.

Couldn't have put it better. Obviously some people are "better" than others - it'd be ignorant to think otherwise. However, what matters is how you define "better". It's an awfully vague term, and that is generally the concept that those kinds of characters work on.

There was a Lex Luthor comic a few years back, and he explained his hatred of Superman as being more that he hated the idea of Superman - that people would loose incentive to try, and would rely on the omnibenevolent hero for everything. It's generally a really really simplified caricature of the "left/right" political stance; What effect does having a beyond-human safety net have on the population, and how does it affect their behaviours.

(This is why I rate Superman comics above the usual "ugh, he's just overpowered, it's not interesting as there's no risk". It's much deeper than that)

 

[Avaholic03]

Well, considering history is written by the victors, I'd say any race/species that can eradicate (or otherwise enslave, dominate, etc.) another one is superior to them, technically speaking. Moral or intellectual superiority won't get you very far when you're up against a group that can kill you without much trouble.

 

[Cowabungaa]

And yeah, humans are superior to meerkats. Meerkats are superior to cockroaches. And so on.

Superior how? How does one define superiority? As sure, we have skills they don't possess, but the other way around is just as much the case.

It's why we in the field of ethics more often than not speak of equal worthiness.

 

[rob_simple]

The problem is that not all races are equal within themselves.

Yeah, Wolverine could fuck up just about any human, he is definitely superior in terms of raw power, but I'm pretty sure I could beat the shit out of Toad and I'm probably smarter than him, too.

There are too many variables in what makes a thing superior to another thing to ever make a blanket statement. I'm smarter than a leopard, but I can't run as fast as one; I'm stronger than a little monkey, I can't quickly climb and hang from trees indefinitely; I can hide better than an elephant, but no one will let me skoosh my nose-water at them.

I'm funnier than Dane cook, but I'm nowhere near as rich as him.

 

[Ratty]

Well, considering history is written by the victors, I'd say any race/species that can eradicate (or otherwise enslave, dominate, etc.) another one is superior to them, technically speaking. Moral or intellectual superiority won't get you very far when you're up against a group that can kill you without much trouble.

Except that, when talking about humans, who gets "victory" is often a simple matter of chance.

The Conquest of the Americas by Europe was almost certainly made possible mostly by the plague of European diseases which the natives had no immunity to, wiping out much if not most of their population in most places thus devastating their civilizations pre-conquest. The Europeans wouldn't have found resistance so scattered if most of the people who they conquered weren't already (the descendants of) the few scattered survivors of disease.

Similarly, who has "superior technology" is dependent upon the resources of an environment in which people find themselves, and the demand from that environment. Guns were developed where and when they were mostly because of a greater access to necessary materials in that area at that time, coupled with the need for that technology then and their. By contrast, the famous metal folding done to harden Japanese katanas is not some mystical eastern secret, it was done because Japanese steel is really shitty. The harder European metals meant sword makers in europe simply didn't have to fold their metal that much.

Culture and society are, basically, just coping mechanisms humans have created to deal with the pressures of their environment. Thus the idea of "superiority" is misleading. It's not that a certain people are "superior" just that they happen to have been in the right place at the right time to develop the more devastating technologies.

But what works in one area does not always (or perhaps even usually) work in another. For example the benefits of "native style clothing" for anyone working a desert or a frigid area will quickly become apparent. So "objective superiority" is mostly an illusion. It's all dependent upon where you are.

 

[happyninja42]

Personally, I don't think superiority between species should be judged by being able to do cool stuff, having advanced technology, or even IQ, but by having transcended the inherent flaws of humanity, for lack of a better word. I consider Superman and Captain America to be superior not because of their power, but because of their moral integrity, wisdom, and willingness and ability to use their gifts to make things better. I don't consider the Asgardians to be superior because while they have all sorts of cool powers, technology, and science, they're still just as flawed and susceptible to corruption as we are.

I think this depends on your definition of superior.

I mean if you look at machinery, some devices are superior to others, because they function better, and perform more functions that the previous device couldn't. To some, this would mean superior, which you could potentially apply to creatures.

A person who is identical to me in every way, but also has super strength, or can fly, or whatever, to me is a superior form of organism.

But here's the kicker, that doesn't mean I have to be submissive to him, or think he's anything other than an asshole. There are plenty of people in this world superior to me in a lot of ways, and that's fine, it doesn't mean anything really, because they still might not do anything with it.

Again, it depends on your definition of superior, and most of the time, when this discussion comes up, it seems a lot of people equate superior with "more worthy of existing than the inferiors". Which is a false premise in my opinion.

I would state with a lot of personal confidence, that I am a superior life form to a cockroach, but that doesn't mean I think that all cockroaches should be destroyed and removed from the biosphere.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

The problem is that not all races are equal within themselves.

Yeah, Wolverine could fuck up just about any human, he is definitely superior in terms of raw power, but I'm pretty sure I could beat the shit out of Toad and I'm probably smarter than him, too.

There are too many variables in what makes a thing superior to another thing to ever make a blanket statement.

Already took that into account. There are not too many variables in this instance. The smartest Asgardian trumps the smartest human. The strongest mutant trumps the strongest human. We are looking at the best. A human's best is nowhere near a martians best.

 

[DefunctTheory]

But what is better?

Because I can make a solid argument that this little guy

Spoiler

is better then Kryptonians, Humans, Asgardians (The beautiful hammer wielding ones, and the little grey ones), and pretty much everything else marvel and DC can throw at it.

 

[Ratty]

The problem is that not all races are equal within themselves.

Yeah, Wolverine could fuck up just about any human, he is definitely superior in terms of raw power, but I'm pretty sure I could beat the shit out of Toad and I'm probably smarter than him, too.

There are too many variables in what makes a thing superior to another thing to ever make a blanket statement.

Already took that into account. There are not too many variables in this instance. The smartest Asgardian trumps the smartest human. The strongest mutant trumps the strongest human. We are looking at the best. A human's best is nowhere near a martians best.

I dunno, the humans invade mars and blow it up at the end of the original 1960s "Mars Attacks!" card series. ;P If you're comparing the great minds of world history well.. that's very difficult to do. There will always be a strong cultural bias towards whichever thinkers (and their respective cultures) most influenced your own culture.

As for individuals, some people are better at some tasks than others. And certainly there are exceptional people, polymaths, astronauts etc. But I feel safe in saying there is no individual who is better than everybody else at everything. An Ayn Rand supporter might tell you "the best and brightest deserve to run the world and to hell with everyone else" but you show me a genius mathematician and I'll show you someone who is unfit for most of the "menial" jobs that are necessary for the function of society. Like farming.

But what is better?

Because I can make a solid argument that this little guy

Spoiler

is better then Kryptonians, Humans, Asgardians (The beautiful hammer wielding ones, and the little grey ones), and pretty much everything else marvel and DC can throw at it.

Yeah that's the thing. "best" is subjective for what you're trying to do in particular. Each species evolves towards being the "the best" at its particular niche. Complex lifeforms can't exist without the more simple ones they feed on. All our mighty works would be impossible without photosynthesis and brainless organisms.

 

[Harpalyce]

Spoiler: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR TARDIGRADE OVERLORDS.

To be honest it depends all on what you mean is the best. Everything's the best at fitting in its own little niche... or at least adequate at fitting in its own little niche. Since ecosystems are so interconnected in wzys we don't fully understand yet, it's kinda hard to say which critter is best at what for any given situation.

Kinda glad this thread took a sharp turn off Social Darwinism Fuckery Road at the last minute though (which Darwin loathed, but I digress) (the whole which-race-of-humanity-is-better thing is just one of those things that does not and cannot end well if anyone actually is stupid enough to posit a theory instead of just gawping at someone being so foolish as to ask the question) (friends don't let friends get into egregious bigotry)

 

[Ryan Hughes]

I have never been a fan of Superman, as he comes far too close to Nietzsche's concept of the Ubermensch for my comfort. Basically, Nietzsche argued that in a rapidly secularizing world, humanity needed to -or perhaps would imminently- develop into something beyond humanity. The odd thing about this is that race -for Nietzsche- played little part in this process, and it was entirely possible for multiple Ubermensch to develop independently of one another in multiple races. This is a major difference between Nietzsche and Superman, and one that really just makes the idea of Superman even worse.

The dependence upon race to delineate people from one another -incorrectly- is one of the major themes running through X-Men. Really, when you get right down to it, the "powers" of the X-Men are really just metaphors for the limitless possibilities presented by discarding the desire to arbitrarily delineate between people. However, X-Men takes this even a step further and shows a corruption of arrogance in the form of Magneto. This is caused by a false belief in "superiority," and by denying the more basic wonder of "possibility." Since the early X-Men comics were concurrent with the latter parts of the American civil rights movement, the argument for interpreting the comic this way is strong.

In reality, the very concept of "superiority" is something that I tend to reject. For one, it is usually used in ignorant, arrogant, or self-righteous manner. Really, just to bolster the egos of those who have found or invented some arbitrary line with which they can place themselves on the side they deem superior. In a sense, doing this actually greatly limits possibility, rather than inspiring us to imagine new possibilities. It is essentially a self-defeating belief with no real foundation.

 

[rob_simple]

The problem is that not all races are equal within themselves.

Yeah, Wolverine could fuck up just about any human, he is definitely superior in terms of raw power, but I'm pretty sure I could beat the shit out of Toad and I'm probably smarter than him, too.

There are too many variables in what makes a thing superior to another thing to ever make a blanket statement.

Already took that into account. There are not too many variables in this instance. The smartest Asgardian trumps the smartest human. The strongest mutant trumps the strongest human. We are looking at the best. A human's best is nowhere near a martians best.

But you can't just use the single best person in each category to say what's what, the species as a whole has to be taken into account.

Like, for example, if that one Asgardian* is smarter than all humans but every other Asgardian is generally a moron and on average more humans are smarter, can you really still say the Asgardians are a superior race, just because of a single genetically exceptional specimen?

If we're being scientific about this, you need to use means-testing and not just take what you consider the best example from each group to then make a decision about that entire group.

I think proportion also has to be taken into account, in this case, at least in terms of physical feats. An ant is proportionally stronger than any human being, but you couldn't realistically say an ant is stronger than a human. Likewise, Saiyans are naturally physically stronger than normal humans only because of a difference in their planet's gravity which causes their bodies develop differently: although they are technically stronger in brute strength, proportionally speaking, the physically strongest Saiyan would probably be on par with the physically strongest human.

*I don't know enough about comic lore to know if all Asgardians are super smart, that was just the race I used as an example, hopefully my point still makes sense.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I have never been a fan of Superman, as he comes far too close to Nietzsche's concept of the Ubermensch for my comfort. Basically, Nietzsche argued that in a rapidly secularizing world, humanity needed to -or perhaps would imminently- develop into something beyond humanity. The odd thing about this is that race -for Nietzsche- played little part in this process, and it was entirely possible for multiple Ubermensch to develop independently of one another in multiple races. This is a major difference between Nietzsche and Superman, and one that really just makes the idea of Superman even worse.

I don't know what you're talking about. Superman would be considered pretty human (all too human) in Nietzsche's thinking. Empathy with the downtrodden and all that. He's certainly not an ubermensch in the idea of overcoming what is human in us, or in anything but a mere physical sense. I would say I don't know why Nietzsche is continually brought up in reference to Superman, except that much is obvious and people can't separate names from concepts.