Let the age-old debate be put to bed: bear vs monkey?

Question

Ok, so bird flu or SARS or whatever wipes out the human population (like gone) leaving practically the entire rest of the ecosystem intact. Bears and primates battle for dominion over dry land. Who wins?

Ok, here are the rules:
1) No peaceful resolution; coexistence and/or isolationism be damned! The bears and the primates want it all and they want it now.

2) No write-in candidates. The dolphins are not taking to the streets. The armadillos do not take charge in the 11th hour for the upset.

3) No other animals as key victors, however they may enter into combat (strategically or otherwise). The monkeys can form an alliance with the lemurs, but only insomuch as the US formed an alliance with Romania to help fight the war in Iraq.

4) We left all of our toys behind. Cars, grocery stores, indoor plumbing, strip clubs. And a lot of human carcasses.

All right, so who's your money on?
© es_de_bah

Answer 1

OK here the answer...monkeys would win. And The reason why can be supported by science. It's called The 100'th monkey theory...this proven theory shows that monkeys and most primates have he ability to create tools and weapons..it was discovered in Asia when a few scientist found a group of monkey that used Rocks to open coconuts instead of smashing them...so using this proven scientific fact monkeys would quickly develop weaponry and destroy the bears.... good question by the way

Answer 2

AHAHAHAHAHA great question!! you and I would probably get along.
My money's on the primates b/c they are smarter, and they are more devious. They can TOTALLY form an alliance with the dinosaurs which we will soon revive with ancient DNA found in some fossile in the middle of Kansas....
Oh and then the monkeys would be eaten by the dinosaurs, which is a real shame given that the dinosaurs are too dumb to thrive, thus obliterating the whole of the only life-carrying planet we know of. And this is how the world shall end.

The end.

And then the bacteria take over. Oh wait, they already have.

Answer 3

a million. Nani 2. Nani (10 goals whilst in comparison with 9) 3. Di Maria (20 whilst in comparison with 14 yet 6 got here against undesirable opposition interior the Copa Del Rey on an identical time as all of Nani's got here interior the league. Di Maria have been given 11 in a league which has much less protecting high quality) Nani > Di Maria

Answer 4

Bears!

The monkeys would be sitting around, eating bananas and junk, while the territorial bears smash the stupid peaceful monkeys.

Besides, there are places that monkeys can't survive, but bears can. The Arctic, for example, could be a prime hideout for bears. If the monkeys did happen to get a slight advantage, the bears could always regroup. Polar bears are master hunters, baby!

Answer 5

ok it goes down one of 3 ways.
1. if primates includes small monkeys and big ones like gorillas the primates win cuz gorillas a faster and they will just knock the bears out. plus gorillas can swing poles and sh*t too.
2. no big monkeys means the little monkeys will run around untill the bears catch them and kill them.
3. little mokeys figure out how to drive cars and run all the baby bears over and shoot the big bears after they break into a gun shop

Answer 6

A bear has more effective natural weapons than any primate. My money goes on the bears. However, if a clever chimpanzee figured out how to use a spear, the balance of power could shift.

Answer 7

Despite being no. 1 on the Threat Down... I have to go against Stephen Colbert and vote for the Primates to win.
They are more adaptable and more intelligent.

Answer 8

It would be unlikely to find bears and monkeys in the same habitat.

Answer 9

monkeys because they are smarter and would be able to have more strategies, especially if gorillas and stuff are in there monkeys all the way.

Answer 10

Since this is a fantasy question with no basis in reality or recognized animal behavior, any guess is right,and all are wrong. What is the point of this?