Preferred position of humans in the food pyramid?

[Sidewinder]

In sci-fi, humans have been portrayed as the top dog in the galaxy, the ONLY dog in the galaxy (no other sentient species), just another sentient species competing with others for a piece of the galactic pie, the underdog in the galaxy (repressed by an alien species), and extinct. I'm curious about people's preferences: where do you like to see humans in the galactic "food pyramid"? The dominant species, e.g., 'Warhammer 40,000'? The sole sentient species, e.g., 'Battletech'? One of many species with near-equal status, e.g., 'Star Trek'? Subjects of a state ruled by a "superior" species, e.g., the TGG Multiverse? Or extinct?

For me, I prefer to see humans as the dominant species-- I'm human, after all, and if I don't stand up for the human race, which species will? Certainly not the other predators competing to be at the top of Earth's food pyramid.

[NecronLord]

Whatever makes a good story.

[Ford Prefect]

It really changes based on whim, and especially how it's done. Certainly there's nothing wrong with humanity being a dominant species, but it can very easily swing into definite human wanking territory, and sometimes it really doesn't make any sense (I often shake my head when I see a human empire springing up in less than a millenium that rivals a species of alien that have been travelling space for longer than we've had gunpowder).

[Peptuck]

Depending on the setting, I suppose. I personally prefer humans being on the same level, or perhaps scraping along just below, the other alien species, as I feel that creates a lot more dramatic opportunities for stories. Then again, Warhammer 40k proves that one can create a hojillion potential stories with humans as the "dominant" species (even if they're pretty much chew toys for the Tyranids/Necrons/Chaos in the end)

[Starglider]

For me, I prefer to see humans as the dominant species-- I'm human, after all, and if I don't stand up for the human race, which species will?

Is there anything objectively superior about humans that implies they are more worthy to be dominant or is this just barely masked narcissism?

Besides, cheering for the underdog is more fun. Though I suppose that implies that humans should be the domineering opressors when the aliens are sufficiently cute and fun, so that I can cheer when they get their comuppance.

[Zor]

I shall second Necron's position in general. However, how about making things more complex with Humanity divided into several factions with one or more being powerful dominent societies with a spectrum of marginal states on the fringes of the galaxy and humans existing as second class citizens in alien nations and the same going with aliens?

Zor

[Big Orange]

To me human denigration can be just as annoying as human wanking, although it is more realistic that humans would pale in comparison to species that have travelled through space for already hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, and that forging a coherent empire across the entire Milky Way is very unlikely if there are civilizations already out there.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Gotta echo the prevalent opinion so far: whatever works best on an individual basis depending on the particular story.

[Peptuck]

I shall second Necron's position in general. However, how about making things more complex with Humanity divided into several factions with one or more being powerful dominent societies with a spectrum of marginal states on the fringes of the galaxy and humans existing as second class citizens in alien nations and the same going with aliens?

I think Mass Effect handles this pretty well. There are subsets of humans and lots of human mercenaries and fringe groups, along with second-class humans (biotics, for example) and the aliens are somewhat stratified; the Turians make it a point to have a bunch of "client races" who are either willing members of the Hierarchy (e.g. the Volus) or conquered enemies, all of whom are second-class citizens without undergoing military service.

[Junghalli]

I voted for option 3 because to my mind it makes for the most interesting story possibilities, but it's really a matter of execution.

[Darth Ruinus]

Dominant species.

Particularly since I grew up on nothing but "Humans always nearly get their asses kicked in sci-fi" and like when it is the other way around.

[Sidewinder]

Is there anything objectively superior about humans that implies they are more worthy to be dominant or is this just barely masked narcissism?

It may be narcissism, but let's admit it: every human society in existence thinks theirs is the best, and any sentient aliens we encounter will likely think their society is superior to ours. It's part of human survival instincts, dating back to the stone age, when humans lived in clans that warred with other clans and wild animals for food and other resources, and "loyalty to the group" was vital to ensuring the survival of that group and its members. I strongly doubt any sentient aliens will have a history less filled with violence than ours, considering they MUST be as vicious and ruthless to get to the top of the food pyramid and gain time to build spaceships instead of fighting for their survival.

Besides, cheering for the underdog is more fun. Though I suppose that implies that humans should be the domineering opressors when the aliens are sufficiently cute and fun, so that I can cheer when they get their comuppance.

You must be a masochist. Put yourself in the position of the HUMAN characters in the story. Do you want to be the slave, or the master?

[Sarevok]

You know Sidewinder by your reasoning the Rebel Alliance would be the galactic empire because everyone cheers for the master.

[Ford Prefect]

You must be a masochist. Put yourself in the position of the HUMAN characters in the story. Do you want to be the slave, or the master?

Put yourself of the reader; would you prefer to read about plucky heroes rebelling against their masters, or instead see humans cast as the opressors?

[Peptuck]

I strongly doubt any sentient aliens will have a history less filled with violence than ours, considering they MUST be as vicious and ruthless to get to the top of the food pyramid and gain time to build spaceships instead of fighting for their survival.

I disagree.

While it makes sense to be able to overpower other species and reach the top of the food chain, being violent and ruthless once you're at the top is a detriment, as once you're up at such a dominant level, the only thing you can really be violent against is your own species.

Once WMD capability is introduced, being violent against members of your own species isn't just a detriment, its a potentially sucidal course of action. I mean, for fuck's sake, we nearly wiped ourselves out several times during the Cold War.

To tell the truth, humanity's domination of the food chain came not from any prediliction toward violence, but a combination of endurance and intelligence. Hell, we humans are automatically conditioned to not kill each other, and have to be trained or learn to push aside the basic instinct to not take another person's life.

[Ghost Rider]

Necron's comment is and will be repeated, so I won't say it again.

Let a story be written regardless. It will be good or bad because the ability of the writer, not some asinine preconcieved notions of forcing the reader into. This only frustrates the intelligent and the dumb think it's more then the shit it likely is.

[NecronLord]

Incidentally, the series finale of Doctor Who last year deserves a special mention.

Humans are simultaneously the plucky underdogs, and the insane utterly alien invincible masters (if not The Master) from the end of time.

Mind you, if I'd been writing it, I'd have ultimately made the final fate of humanity less depressing. Dalek Void Ship anyone?

[CJvR]

On the menu - like the Poosleen universe...

As long as the story is good it probably matters less.

[Stark]

It really changes based on whim, and especially how it's done. Certainly there's nothing wrong with humanity being a dominant species, but it can very easily swing into definite human wanking territory, and sometimes it really doesn't make any sense (I often shake my head when I see a human empire springing up in less than a millenium that rivals a species of alien that have been travelling space for longer than we've had gunpowder).

Oh yeah, the whole 'x has been in space for 50,000 years and uses the same tech they used 50,000 years ago, but humans invented FTL last week and now they're challenging the galaxy' thing is hilariously lame.

I think this is a hilarious look into the mentality behind Sidewinder's terrible fanfiction, though. He identifies with his characters, to the point where he asks another potential author 'do you want to be the slave or the master'! Here I was thinking the setting should be whatever supports the theme or premise, and not the other way around.

[Covenant]

Humans dominate a lot of fiction because they just do. Often they aren't the best at much of anything, except they're adaptable, they apparently like to have sex more than other species do (for some reason) and have thumbs and other useful limbs, whereas most aliens seem to either be mentally incompetant musclebags or intelligent little dweebs.

Basically, aliens seem to mirror the types of people you meet in highschool, and that's kinda a mistake... but if that's what you're going for, humans end up doing well by default really, since they're a metaphor for the reader in a self-insertion fantasy.

I'd say, stick humans where it's motivational and inspiring, and not where it's masturbatory. If you're writing a story in which humans are basically gods of space, a little explination would be useful to make it reasonable. I'd say, either make intelligence very rare, or make us the Universe's Johnny Come Latelys. Maybe we avoided a galactic superwar during the Last Galactic Golden Age or something, the fall of space rome, because Earth was still covered in Dinosaurs and nobody gave two shits about it. But if intelligence is common then we have to assume, as others already have, that we're nowhere near the top. Our intellectual progress has been nowhere near as quick as it could have been, and we had a long, long false start with all the other lizardy critters around keeping the world stupid.

[Stark]

That's just poor writing. Most sciece fiction uses aliens merely as foils to the human characters, so they're designed to represent some archetype. It's lazy and stupid. It's just like ridiculous RPGs where humans 'are the most versatile' and shit like that. Unimaginative.

Oh noes, can the humans defeat the Ugly Warrior Guys With Lasors?!?!!? Etc etc. It doesn't help that unless it's a focus of the story, developing alien psychology and characters is a lot of work for little gain. The 'humans rule fuck yeah' ending to Mass Effect is an example of hilariously stupid writing.

[Ford Prefect]

The 'humans rule fuck yeah' ending to Mass Effect is an example of hilariously stupid writing.

That seems like a pity, because apart from the races being fairly one note, the characters within those races were pretty well-rounded, and the way we interacted felt pretty good. The Systems Alliance might have had the Normandy, but it was built with cooperation from the Turians, and it is implied that the Turians really got into helping us out so to speak. That was good. We piggy-backed and cooperated our way up the ranks. That was cool.

[Starglider]

Is there anything objectively superior about humans that implies they are more worthy to be dominant

It may be narcissism

So no then. Obviously the real answer is 'whatever works for the story' as numerous people have pointed out, but lets look at the question of 'if you knew your fictional universe was going to get turned into a parallel reality by Q, how would you lay it out'. I would certainly not put humans in charge of anything. Firstly we suck in too many ways to enumerate, compared to what's theoretically possible, and secondly we're relatively boring, anatomically and mentally. Which you'd expect in a 'lol lots of sentient species at comparable tech levels in contact at once!' sci-fi anyway; statistically we should be near the centre of the bell curve for brand new species. Everything wrong with humanity is fixible given time and sufficiently advanced transhumanism, but 99.99% of sci-fi doesn't examine that for fear of losing the average reader.

but let's admit it: every human society in existence thinks theirs is the best, and any sentient aliens we encounter will likely think their society is superior to ours.

So? By that logic most aliens will probably be religious nuts too, but that doesn't make religion any more sane.

You must be a masochist. Put yourself in the position of the HUMAN characters in the story. Do you want to be the slave, or the master?

And I would do that why? The human characters in the story aren't inherently more worthy of my empathy than the alien characters. They may be /easier/ to emphasise with, but there's no particular reason why I'm going to consider them more valuable as people. Furthermore the sillyiness of most sci-fi futures is such that if I was inclined to project myself into the story, it's actually not much more of a stretch to imagine myself as one of the aliens.

It's not that I'm actually a Nutkin advance spy sent to infiltrate British society. Ignore the bushy tail human. Go back to your computerised entertainment device and do not think of this again.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I tend to think humans arent that bad, but arent that great either. What i mean is i suspect that many cod philosophers believe aliens are more...alien than they probably are, and it's likely that most of them are of similar cultural and technological level to humans. Like, if you could measure the technological advancement of a race with specific levels, the most primitive peoples would be a Level 1-3, the most advanced would be a Xeelee-like Level 10, while most races (including humans) fall somewhere in the Level 5-7 range.

So, "Peers" then.

[Starglider]

I tend to think humans arent that bad, but arent that great either.

Basic probability would suggest that we're most likely at the centre of any bell curve. But in most sci-fi that would be the 'species just now venturing into space' bell-curve, not the 'species at large in the galaxy' bell-curve.

What i mean is i suspect that many cod philosophers believe aliens are more...alien than they probably are,

You think this why?

and it's likely that most of them are of similar cultural and technological level to humans.

Do you have any comprehension of how minute the timespan between humans being hunter-gatherers and humans being a technological civilisation is in galactic (or even planetary) terms? Or are you just utterly convinced that we're about to hit a peak any day now, and that progress is going to come to a screaching halt at culture/technology 'similar to what we currently have'?

Like, if you could measure the technological advancement of a race with specific levels, the most primitive peoples would be a Level 1-3, the most advanced would be a Xeelee-like Level 10, while most races (including humans) fall somewhere in the Level 5-7 range.

Oh I see, you understand just enough statistics to be dangerous. Your analysis is incorrect because your assumptions are completely wrong.