r/AskReddit • u/EternalDialogue • 7h ago
If humanity went extinct, what animal is most likely to eventually evolve to take our place?
•
u/Interesting_Net1297 7h ago
Chimps.
•
u/1Negative_Person 6h ago
Chimps or bonobos if they survive the extinction event and expand their population enough fast enough (they’re both endangered).
My vote is raccoons.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Drak_is_Right 2h ago
Anything that wipes us out completely is going to devastate the ecosystem. Humans are far more adaptable than Chimps in an enormous range of climates.
So my guess is a burrowing rodent that can survive underground for long spells will be one of the few mammals to survive the extinction event.
It might take tens of millions of years to get a new sentient species from that rodent.
•
•
u/verstohlen 6h ago
I hate every one I see. From chimpan-A to chimpanzee.
•
u/Wonderful-Tale-1483 6h ago
Dr Zaius ?
•
•
•
u/HeliBif 5h ago
Can I play the piano anymore??
•
•
u/piconese 6h ago
Ohmygosh, I was wrong!
•
u/Zoogirl07 6h ago
It was Earth, all along!
•
u/boxofstolenpens 5h ago
You’ve finally made a monkey…
•
•
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/stinkyandsensitive 6h ago edited 5h ago
Last I heard there were some spotted making and using spears for fishing 🤔 ((EDIT: I have been informed the pic is of an Orangutan! Still cool))
•
u/KatzeeKat 6h ago
I wonder if we are actually having a positive impact on other species evolving in some ways. Really apes in general are great at mimicking. Watching what we do may actually speed up their evolution.
•
u/creatorsgame 6h ago
Great question. I’m currently reading The Sixth Extinction and there are plenty of species were are harming. Would love Elizabeth Kolbert to take a similar approach from your angle here. If it were happening, it would be a fascinating read.
•
u/Trash-Forever 6h ago
That was in 2007 dude
•
•
u/MichiganCarNut 6h ago
I guess he hasn't heard that some have since learned to speak English and can shoot rifles while riding horses
•
u/stinkyandsensitive 5h ago
I was mistaken about it being a chimp, it was an orangutan and I saw it on a youtube vid way more recent than 2007
•
u/Kurtypants 6h ago
I thought that was orangutans? Might be both but theres a famous picture of an orangutan at least trying
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/fishsticks40 6h ago
This is the only serious answer. Even then human level intelligence is probably pretty unlikely
→ More replies (8)•
u/ConsiderationTrue477 6h ago
Their numbers are a real problem here. There are just a couple hundred thousand.
•
u/goodnut22 6h ago
Humans were down to much less than that at one point apparently.
•
u/TheBanishedBard 6h ago
Their numbers would rebound once humans stopped destroying their habitats and poaching them.
•
u/BlacksmithNZ 4h ago
"Once humans stopped destroying their habitats and poaching them"
Problem is that humans are the ultimate apex predators; once we are gone, then it is not a slam dunk that other apes will take over our niche.
If the number of other great apes increased, the big cats like leopards & tigers might also increase numbers and hunt apes.
Humans hunted big cats to near extinction as we developed rock throwing, axes and spears etc. I don't believe other apes have that level of sophistication and learning/communication/language.
Areas occupied by apes won't increase that much; if Gorillas or Chimps tried coming out of forests into open savanna grasslands without weapons, then big cats could prey on them. Baboons do survive now, by troops of large powerfully built apes that can fight back, but just don't think other primates could
•
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/Bimlouhay83 6h ago
Dolphin...if they don't decide to leave first.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/TDStarchild 4h ago
They have tried to warn us. Humans, of course, thinking ourselves superior, ignored them
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Fit-Yak9148 7h ago
Crows. They’re already suspiciously smart. Give them a few million years and we’re screwed 😂
•
u/BiBoFieTo 6h ago
We're gonna get murdered.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Fit-Yak9148 6h ago
Nah, I’m switching sides. I’ll befriend the crows before they take over 😂
•
u/Lexinoz 6h ago
A group of crows is called a murder. They were being punny I believe.
•
u/Fit-Yak9148 6h ago
Okay that makes the original comment 10x funnier now 😭😂
•
u/Cha-Le-Gai 56m ago
This is only tangentially related, but you really should look up different names for groups of animals. The big ones are simple like pack, pride, herd, but some of them are crazy or hilarious.
Congregation of alligators
Business of lemurs
Mob of emus. Very fitting
And parliament of owls. My personal favorite.
Also pandas, I won't spoil.
Some are unofficial, but some date back hundreds of years.
•
u/Recent-Singer8146 5h ago
I, for one, welcome our new crow overlords. I would like to remind them that I could be useful helping to harvest roadkill and carrion to feed the murder of crows.
•
u/Fit-Yak9148 5h ago
Perfect. I’ll handle crow diplomacy, you handle the food supply. We might actually survive this 😂
•
u/Honey_Broad 6h ago
I love crows they are so cool
•
u/Fit-Yak9148 6h ago
Same! They’re way smarter than people give them credit for. Kinda scary actually 😂
→ More replies (1)•
u/Pm_me_baby_pig_pics 5h ago
Crows and ravens are amazing.
There was one day I was sitting in a kfc drive thru, when I heard something small bounce off the roof of my car. I didn’t think much of it. But then it happened again. And again. The third time I looked up out the window to see a raven sitting on the roof, he was dropping pebbles onto my car. He saw me notice him, disappeared for a second, and then came back and dropped a chicken bone onto my windshield. And then he let out a lil squack and just stared at me.
This guy was trying to get my attention, so he could give me his order.
I got my order and pulled up so the person behind me could get their food going, and stuck a few fries onto the roof of my car, which he quickly flew down and grabbed. He earned it.
•
•
u/tallhottblondes 6h ago
Fuck that. Dolphins. They like to fuck, and are hella smart. Fuckers know when I have a fish I’m gonna keep or throw back into the ocean.
•
•
u/Fit-Yak9148 6h ago
Dolphins are definitely on my list too 😂 They’re way too smart and somehow always look like they know something we don’t.
→ More replies (1)•
•
•
u/Narf234 4h ago
If land, I say corvids. They are wicked smart, social, and in that sweet spot of predator and prey. I think that is crucial for developing intelligence.
If we’re talking the sea, I say cephalopods. They are super intelligent but they would need to overcome short lifespans and being pretty secluded.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/shewy92 1h ago
The book series Children of Time has an evolution virus that makes mantis shrimp (mentioned in passing) and spiders super smart and they create their own civilizations. The book after that focus on octopuses.
The 3rd book has super smart corvids and an interesting question on if they were actually sentient or just really good at problem solving and basically a LLM.
The 4th goes more into the smart mantis shrimp.
•
u/Few_Blacksmith5147 6h ago
Probably orangutans. Maybe bonobos or chimps, but orangutans are better with tools, so I think they’ve got the edge if they can get their population higher.
•
u/Distinct-Educator-52 6h ago
Orangutans are smarter than chimpanzees already and they are not homicidal maniacs either
•
u/Rehberkintosh 5h ago
That may work against them. Humans definitely got to where we are by being homicidal maniacs.
•
u/ewokoncaffine 4h ago
Humans got where we are through collaboration and tool use. The violence may have helped us eliminate early hominid competitor species but I don't think you can make a reasonable argument that it has helped since
→ More replies (1)•
u/Rehberkintosh 3h ago
We developed rockets to drop bombs on each other, we split the atom to explode each other, jet engines were invented to better kill each other, we learned to work iron so we could kill those shmucks wearing bronze. On the flip side we developed many medical procedures to save our dudes after they got stabbed/shot/exploded. Our inate desire to kill each other has forced our technology to advance more than anything else.
•
u/SnowGhost513 3h ago
Brother you are talking about humans doing shit to other humans after being around for a long long long time. We evolved over an insanely long period of time. No animal has the capacity to evolve to human levels they have no pathway
•
u/SloppySilvia 2h ago
Other primates could if given a couple million years+. Chimps aren't very far off from us. Given the time and a good bit of luck, it wouldnt be hard to imagine other primates being in our place.
Modern humans are 300 thousand years old roughly. The broader human group is about 3 million old. We basically went from living in caves to us now in like 100 thousand years but we took millions of years to develop from living in trees to being the cave dwellers.
•
•
•
u/AsmodeusMogart 7h ago
Chimpanzee
They may already be in their Stone Age.
•
u/TheGuyUrSisterLikes 6h ago
what came first do you think.... the use of fire?
proper language more than 10 grunts? or.. ... slightly beyond primitive tool use?...
like not just a stick to grab some ants out of a hole maybe you have to alter that stick and tie a Vine to it to make it into some kind of tool...
what do we think
→ More replies (1)•
u/zeracine 6h ago
Some monkeys sharpen sticks to make stabbing other monkeys better or more lethal. They're in tool use stage.
•
u/Timulen 6h ago edited 6h ago
Birbs are too. And they are like little dinosaurs. Just saying, the dinos may not be gone/have their time again..
→ More replies (1)•
u/TheGringoDingo 6h ago
Do they do anything with frogs?
•
u/piconese 6h ago
Aside from wank with them? Not sure…
•
u/TheGringoDingo 5h ago
I’m sure there are a lot of ways that suck, when considering frog death options. I’m not sure any are worse than by getting orally assaulted by a chimp. Do we think that their future society develops frog agriculture in order to meet demand?
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/-PasswordisTaco- 6h ago
Has the evolution of chimps been affected by living alongside homosapiens for the last 100 thousand years+?
Obviously individual chimps can learn things from humans, but has this advanced the species as a whole?
•
u/jenniferfox98 5h ago
For real. The great apes are clearly intelligent but chimps and bonobos split like a few million years ago? Which I would assume means those species have been somewhat static that whole time. Homo Sapiens first came about around 300,000 years ago, and there were many other Homo species before us. We weren't the first to use tools, build fire, or walk only upright probably.
Orangutans, Chimps, and Gorillas can all learn and mimic behavior but I'm not sure if that should be the marker for human-level intelligence. And I don't think it's even fair to say another species is in its "X Age."
If I'm not mistaken, the ability to use tools or do multi-step problem solving probably evolved before Humans and Chimps split. I would think our brains as they initially evolved were already primed and developed enough to create complex language, problem solving, and processing. A lot of species existed for millions of years and did not reach Human levels of intelligence. We have existed for 300,000 years and put humans on the moon, and broadly understand the fundamental forces that underline the universe.
I doubt it would be chimps that take over, it would probably just follow a similar evolution as humans.
•
u/venusasaburrito 7h ago
Crows
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Curivia 6h ago
Nothing. Just watched a good video on this. It’s not that we’re intelligent, but we happened to evolve all the right traits of high intelligence, precise hands, social relationships which allow the sharing of knowledge across generations and group collaboration for a greater goal, cheap calories through fire use, and effective tool use to create the success story that we are. No other animal has all five. Chimps come close; with enough time and evolutionary pressure perhaps their brains can evolve more and they can start using fire. But as of now, nothing is on that path.
•
u/Wunder-Bar75 5h ago
I agree that primates are well situated. After all we’re closely related to chimps and orangutans, so it stands to reason they have most of the innate characteristics to approach our level of intelligence/sapience, especially in our absence. That said, there is a contrarian part of me that thinks it’s easy to attribute all our characteristics to being prerequisites for sapience because we’re biased and we’re the only known example of it. But one example is hardly a great sample size.
It’s funny though, OP says “replace” humans and everyone jumped to intelligence. Intelligence/sapience (and they aren’t the same thing) have their utility but it’s not a guarantee that a creature even thrives (there’s some great sci fi by Peter Watts that explores this). For example, chimps could learn to use tools more and even develop a fairly sophisticated language but struggle to compete with feral dogs that through volume and versatility keep them sequestered to a limited environment. Feral dogs filling niches left by humans would likely happen quicker than other primates evolving to the state of prehistoric man. What’s more the dog probably wouldn’t grow more intelligent with their success, because what pressure would there be for them to do so. Evolution doesn’t flow toward a single end point that is intelligence. That’s just how the dice rolled for us.
→ More replies (2)•
u/bananapeel 1h ago
Humans also had a distinct advantage that would not be available to whatever comes afterward. Easy and abundant energy. Trees at first, for fuel... that can grow back in a few thousand years. But a layer of easy-to-find coal was huge in allowing humanity to develop from simple stone age to metallurgy.
However, our garbage dumps and junked cars (and junkyards specifically) would be a gold mine for easy access to essentially high grade metal ore to refine. Given charcoal and iron ore, you can make spongy wrought iron with nothing more than a set of bellows and a hammer. It would be difficult to move further up from that, because we've used up all the easy to find fuel sources.
•
u/catapultpillar 6h ago
Probably nothing. There's a good argument to be made that the confluence of selective pressures and random luck that resulted in human intelligence is unlikely to repeat in the 100 million years or so before the sun cooks the plantet
•
u/StatisticianScary984 5h ago
Isn't it closer to 5bn? That's plenty of time. If we had to base it on who has the advantage right now then I say chimps. But in reality they've already had close to 6m or so years and they're nowhere near intelligent enough. They've had their chance and they lost.
Maybe rat. Or something from a rat in 20m years from now
•
u/AngryTree76 5h ago
About a billion years until the sun grows hot enough to evaporate the oceans and turn the Earth into a hot dustball.
•
u/jmdwinter 7h ago
Orcas
•
u/bageltheperson 6h ago
Without a doubt. They are already dominant in the water and have insane traits like being able to learn new languages. Given the chance to evolve for thousands of years without humans I think they dominate.
•
u/jmdwinter 5h ago
Today children we are learning about special relativity as described by orcstein in his seminal pape... Oh look, a cat! Let's do a coordinated pack hunt and eat its liver!
•
u/Ryratseph 6h ago
As smart as they are they dont have workable thumbs and are restricted to the waters so its a no from me dawg
→ More replies (1)•
u/Ubeube_Purple21 6h ago
Aquatic animals have the inherent disadvantage of needing to adapt to land first.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Revolutionary_Rip876 7h ago
octopus
•
u/KomEreYoi 7h ago
Too non social and short lived. They dont really share knowledge between generations. Thats a major hurdle in raising a species above just being "Intelligent"
•
•
u/_Apostate_ 6h ago
That’s what’s so damn impressive about how smart they are. In isolation and only a few years to live and learn, how the fuck do they get so smart?? Their smarts are baked into their nervous systems in a different way than us learning and growing mammals.
•
u/Mindless-Depth-1795 5h ago
Interestingly Octopi have the capability to engage in social/observational learning. They have done experiments with puzzle boxes in labs. In theory if they ever became pack animals they would be able to pass on skills and culture.
•
•
u/Sregniftheconfused 5h ago
Though many are non social i highly recommend looking into the communities off the coast of Australia. I'll leave a link if your interested. https://www.livescience.com/60804-octlantis-octopus-community-discovered.html
•
u/jdallen1222 6h ago
They would also have to adapt to living on land first. You will never be able to forge metals or create anything else underwater.
•
u/KinkySeppuku 6h ago
That’s a very human centric view of intelligence and development. Who knows what a super intelligent underwater being would’ve said about what can’t be done on land.
•
u/NoLawsDrinkingClawz 6h ago
I mean using fire, or doing any appreciable chemistry becomes a tad harder underwater.
•
u/KinkySeppuku 6h ago
And on land you’re “stuck” on the ground due to gravity and air. Every being needs water and on land, you obviously get very little of that. There’s any number of things you can point to that an ocean dwelling intelligent being would say is crucial for development of their kind of civilization that couldn’t work on land.
The fire example is the same for us. We likely don’t even know what a “fire” equivalent might be for an underwater civilization.
•
u/E_Mohde 6h ago
fire was important because we could get more energy out of cooked food than raw food, which allowed for the evolution of very resource-intensive brains
•
u/KinkySeppuku 6h ago
I’m not saying fire wasn’t important for us. It was crucial. But again, that’s just for US.
What if an ocean creature had a way to create/generate electrical current underwater to cook food, provide power, or perform other unique and revolutionary functions like fire does for us.
If they were asked this same question about land, they might say that air isn’t a conductor of electricity so it’s totally not viable for this seemingly crucial electrical current technology, so no land creature could ever obtain our level of “intelligence”.
•
u/NoLawsDrinkingClawz 5h ago
I was thinking fire mostly for metallurgy, and controlled chemistry being easier when your atmosphere is, well, an atmosphere instead of water. I'm not discounting it. All Tomorrow's had an interesting take on tool evolution underwater. Just saying it does make things more difficult.
→ More replies (1)•
u/_Apostate_ 4h ago
An underwater race might build structures around geothermal vents to harness their heat and power to do stuff.
→ More replies (1)•
u/jdallen1222 6h ago
I'm not sure why what they think would matter. If they cannot overcome their own environment and escape the water they will never take our place.
•
•
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/ionixsys 6h ago
If they can figure some things out, Octopus are shockingly intelligent aliens.
→ More replies (5)
•
•
u/DifferentMud1010 7h ago
Likely none. If it was to happen, it would almost certainly be another primate.
•
u/ConsiderationTrue477 7h ago edited 6h ago
Dogs. There are millions of them, they are adapted to living in packs, and they're familiar with our infrastructure so will be able to readily take advantage of our ruins. They also have a lot of human-like characteristics. They're pursuit predators with awesome endurance and can eat almost anything.
Rats will be their biggest competition but I think dogs will evolve faster.
→ More replies (19)•
u/Direct_Lawfulness_28 6h ago
No, I’m a qualified dog trainer and behaviourist. The original idea that dogs were pack animals was debunked by the same person responsible for its perpetuity in the first place, and spent the rest of his life trying to correct people on it.
Quick google away. Dogs are NOT pack animals, they are social animals and share next to zero behaviours with actual pack animals like wolves.
Google it.
•
u/JaDamian_Steinblatt 6h ago edited 6h ago
I'm an unqualified nobody but I know pedantry when I see it. This is pure, unmitigated pedantry from someone who's proud they know a fun fact and get to tell other people they're wrong.
We domesticated wolves because they're pack animals who are built to live in groups. We changed them to live in groups of humans instead of other wolves, so obviously the social dynamics are gonna look different from traditional wolf packs. That wasn't so obvious to John Fisher, who tried to claim human-dog households have the same exact dominance hierarchy that wolves have, but then he realized his mistake and corrected himself.
So yeah, the only reason dogs aren't pack animals is because they're evolved to live with human families instead of dog families and we don't refer to human families as "packs."
What matters is they came from pack animals and have the social cohesion of pack animals and could probably adapt to living in packs again if humans suddenly disappeared, which is the only point the original commenter was making.
→ More replies (3)•
u/C4CTUSDR4GON 6h ago
Huskies and alaskan malamutes are though right? They always have to figure out who is top dog
→ More replies (1)
•
u/VeshWolfe 6h ago
I don’t think it’ll be a single species this time. I think Chimps would be the most recognizable to humans, in time maybe even finding some of our old technology that survives.
Corvids I think would develop their own society of sorts.
Dolphins or Orcas I think would also develop some sort of society as well.
•
•
u/tea_and_biology 3h ago edited 3h ago
Zoologist here! Actually, almost certainly none; not only would the sort of environmental pressures that led to the divergence between hominins and the panini (yes, that's the name of the chimpanzee line, apparently) likely arise again while extant chimpanzee still exist; and ii) evolution just doesn't work like that.
This 'aint Pokémon; and evolution isn't a ladder, working it's way inexorably 'upwards' towards humanity; there's no reason to suggest anything would or could 'replace us'. Sapience isn't inevitable nor certainly guided towards, it's just an unusual hiccup that could and did only arise under a peculiar set of circumstances. Mammals (and it could only be mammals) that lived in a three-dimensional social world, suddenly forced to become bipedal by changing environment, thereby freeing their hands for complex tool use.
Chimpanzee, alas, have doubled down on the tree niche; and despite tectonic shift in the projected biogeography of Africa over the next ~10 million years (the entire Eastern side is going to be cast away as it's own independent sub-continent, as the rift valley splits the continent in twain), the rainforest belt that makes up the majority of the chimpanzee's habitat will remain largely stable and undisturbed; a recipe for a shift to necessary bipedalism this is not.
Modern chimpanzee, and maybe apes altogether, will long be extinct before there's even the remotest chance of a convergent trajectory towards being human-like.
I'd further wager, given there's only ~750 million years to go before all life on Earth goes belly up, and the circumstances that lead to our niche so unusual, I don't think we'll see a technologically advanced species arise on this planet ever again.
Cephalopods, for example, have even less potential; non-overlapping generations has been hard-coded into their biology for, what, ~530 million years? There's no way they're climbing down that fitness island and into a situation where their generations can overlap, and thereby begin the basis of a culture, and teach one another. Squidward never was, and never shall be.
All this to say, it's truly a weird quirk that such a metabolically expensive trait as sophisticated tool use, sapience, and technology capable of altering the environment as we do ever arose. The chances of lightning striking twice in this instance are just way too low. Let's cherish what we have, and ensure we try to keep it going for as long as possible, eh?
→ More replies (1)
•
u/weirdgroovynerd 7h ago
Ants.
•
u/BoiledStegosaur 6h ago
Should be the top answer. Theyre so efficient and resilient, and collectively intelligent
→ More replies (1)•
u/Ken_Thomas 5h ago
Ants are already the dominant species on the planet.
The fact that they don't put ants on the Moon and play banjos and wear smartwatches just means they have their priorities in order.
•
u/Krail 6h ago
Chimps/bonobos.
There are lots of super intelligent, highly social, tool using animals out there. But if you're going to be a smart tool user, hands are a huge advantage.
Maybe honorable mention to elephants. Those trunks might prove similarly useful with a couple million years' evolution. I'd put maybe crows or parrots third in line here.
•
•
•
u/ReverendLoki 5h ago
Crabs.
They might not even be the crabs we have now, but some other species that has evolved into a new crab species.
→ More replies (1)
•
•
u/FrightenedOfSpoons 5h ago
None of them. Look at how many other species even came close throughout the history of life on this planet. We are a statistical freak, and have only been around for a brief blip of evolutionary time. If you remove that one anomaly then the things will just carry one as they have for eons. Evolution will not necessarily refill the vacancy.
•
u/TheKingJest 5h ago
My dog specifically. He's neutered so he'll have to reproduce through prayer, but he's so smart and bloodthirsty his children shall surely thrive.
•
•
•
u/Careful_Cranberry364 5h ago
Evolution isn’t headed in a direction
to be like humans.
Humans are kind of a wildcard.
•
u/waverly_Wild 4h ago
Corvids. Crows/ravens already use tools, hold grudges, and have city maps in their heads. Give them a few million years and they’re building crow-veniences stores
•
•
u/t0m0hawk 6h ago
Its very unlikely that any would. Even us, if our civilization collapsed tomorrow, we probably dont get back up.
The industrial revolution changed everything. Coal and crude oil were easy to access. Not anymore. We got to all the stuff that was easy to reach.
All the stuff that's left is hard to access. Its deep underground, its at the bottom of oceans. You need tools that are hard to make, especially without a rigorous industrial and power network.
Love or hate hydrocarbons, we'd still be barely out of the middle ages of not for them.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/WinchesterRepeater 6h ago edited 6h ago
There would be many animals that end up doing really good without humans. Chimps, orangutans, bonobos, and crows would probably end up being the smartest. But pigs and boar would destroy other species as now there’s not much to keep them from eating everything else. Feral cats would also do well. As feral cats in some areas are already doing very well. And in Australia they do good that they’ve became huge. I can just the area of America, a bunch of feral cats live around me and my neighbors. The cats hunt almost everything. The only real thing keeping them in check is being nurtured or adopted.
•
•
•
u/USS_TinyPigeon 6h ago
🐢🐢🐢 Slow and steady wins the race. I am older than Dinosaurs 🐢🐢🐢🤭
I am 260 MILLION years old 🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢 😊😊
•
•
•
u/AdAlternative7148 6h ago
If we assume humanity goes out in a mass extinction probably all other great apes go extinct. Cetaceans are also quite vulnerable if the event affects marine life.
In that scenario I would a monkey if any survive, or crows or rats.
•
•
u/Specialist_Heron_986 4h ago
Rats.
Once they learn there are no more people leaving food scraps for them to eat, they'll start preparing their own meals.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/Ragazzano 7h ago
At the top of the food chain? Probably pigs. Will they develop tech like ours? Doubtful. Unless one of the other great apes steps into our niche, earth won't see another tool user with clever hands for a very long time.
•
u/Iluminiele 6h ago
Um. Top of the food chain is not just a smart sounding phrase you can randomly use whenever.
Pigs are not, will never be anywhere near the top
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)•
•
•
•
u/Sharkkkk2 6h ago
Raccoons. They already have the hands, the brains, and the guts to steal from us, give them a few million years and they'll be running the place.