Interesting article. On a side note, so often humans ethnocentrically assume that humans are superior to other organisms because of our brain development. But evolution doesn't work that way. One organism is not superior to another. It isn't a competition for phylogenetic superiority of any one species.

Instead each organism is superior in its niche. Each organism had evolved those attributes that makes it supremely "fit" for the space in the habitat it occupies. When those attributes no longer serve to keep the organism supremely "fit" within its niche, that organism either adapts (through a number of evolutionary mechanisms) or goes extinct.

Simply because humans have been able to articially modify their environment to adapt to them, as opposed to the other way around, does not make our species automatically superior. In fact just the opposite. We are a much more fragile species then most. On top of that, we as a species have advanced to a state of "unfitness" that just might be spelling our demise in few generations.

*For those of you unfamiliar with evolutionary terminology and jargon, I have put quotes around the word "fit". This is perhaps one of the most important terms in evolutionary theory, as well as being one of the most misunderstood by the lay public. " Fitness " to ones environment is the one key element that determines whether a species continues on or goes extinct. It implies a positive compatibility and relationship with all of the aspects that the species interacts with and depends upon.

For generations, people have made reference to the "survival of the fittest". This has nothing to do with who eats who, or as in business who can consume the most competitors. Rather what it refers to is the most "fit", in utilizing its positive attributes to maintain its evolutionary viability. The Social Darwinists got it all wrong (eg. Trump and associates).