We have no right to judge intelligence purely through our perception of intelligence, rather we must seek to broaden our understanding and view of intelligence and sapience. Yes there aren't any other species that are sapient like humans, but then there are very very few species that are like humans. Dolphins and other aquatic mammals are known to have complex social structures and languages, and are very evidently self aware and able to comprehend themselves and their existence. Are we to deny their sapience simply because they don't have economies of scale or what we perceive as civilization? I would argue that dolphins, elephants, whales, and some birds have formed (by our standards) rudimentary civilizations that are practical and necessary for their survival.

If we expand the concept, i would argue that similar things could be said about insects/bugs if we aggregate the intelligence. Ants have colonized every continent except for Antarctica. They have complex social structures and very clear markers of civilization. The only difference is that they function as a collective rather than as an individual. Are we to say that the Borg are not sapient because their civilization is predicated on the collective rather than the individual? The biggest thing I would have against calling ants sapient is that I am unsure of how self aware the collective is, but is that a necessity for sapience? To what degree is it necessary? Are we basing this off of a model of ourselves, of which only we fit into? Do we even have the right to demarcate what is and isn't intelligent, sentient, and/or sapient? I would posit no to a lot of these questions, especially given that I also think we are a lot less intelligent and sapient than we think we are. I don't believe a truly intelligent and sapient being would judge the intelligence and sapience of another being, but simply accept that it is as it is.