Are Humans Animals Or Not ?

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they are. Because humans are not plantae, fungi, eubacteria, protista, or archaebacteria.

They ain't? Wait a minute...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We assume that at some point in the evolution of life forms some life form that we would not recognize as "human" evolved into a life form that we do recognize as "human".

Not an assumption. An evolutionary / genetic fact.

And the characteristics listed above are generally how we identify the latter from the former: the use of tools, and the recognition of 'spirit'.

Plenty of animals use tools. Chimps make and use tools.

 

[YoursTrue]

A car is simply a more sophisticated tool.

oh is that all. Just more sophisticated... a little or a lot more sophisticated?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But being a primate is not what defines us, and it never has been. And we don't know what happened or when, that set us apart from all the other animals to such a striking degree.

It's not as striking as you would like to think.
We are far more alike then we are different.

But we do know the characteristics that resulted. And that still define us to this day.

Every species has characteristics that are unique to them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Biology is not what defines us "human" as the term "human" refers to a great deal more that just our biology.

I disagree.

It's not being "poetic" to call ourselves humans in reference to somethng more than biology, it's just being honest.

No. It's being narcistic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

we are what we are, whether if you one wants label us as animals or not is irrelevant, and subjective ……

Errr.... no. The label animal, and the criteria determining what qualifies as animal, is about as objective as it gets.

regardless if you believe in evolution or creation (or both) the point is that nether God, nor natural selection “created” organisms with modern 21 Century English vocabulary in mind



1 First organisms appeared on this palnet

2 Then we humans tried to organize them based on some arbitrary criteria

3 then we invent words that describe those clasifications

The classification of biological entities is anything but arbitrary.

In this particular time and context , scientists arbitrarily decided that the definition of “animal” includes humans and excludes apples.

No.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not an assumption. An evolutionary / genetic fact.


Plenty of animals use tools. Chimps make and use tools.

They haven't supposedly evolved to build factories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Humans are animals" is a false claim, as humans are more than "just animals". Such a claim would easily belittle our true potential

Your superiority complex and narcisism has no bearing on biological realities and facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

oh is that all. Just more sophisticated... a little or a lot more sophisticated?

It doesn't matter.

It is a tool.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They haven't supposedly evolved to build factories.

Another "so what" argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree.


No. It's being narcistic.

when someone describes another human as being like an animal, that's not considered by most a compliment. And I'm speaking of the category, not necessarily someone describing a person as a sweet kitten. Of course, some might describe another as a sheep, and that could be a compliment, while others might say he's stubborn like a goat or mule. Mules and goats and kittens generally don't talk in human language anyway, so I would figure most (humans) might conclude cats, kittens, sheep, goats, etc. cannot describe to humans what they mean in English, Russian, Swahili, Spanish, etc.

 

[flowerpower]

And if so or not why ? I personally think that humans share lots of similar things to animals but I also know that there are things that separate us from animals so to me it would seem that humans are part animal and part higher than animal.

Of course humans are animals.

Yes we're a different species to other species of animal but all species of animals are different from each other.

We just developed a really remarkable evolutionary trait being our advanced frontal lobes which led to capacity for more refined rational thought, reasoning ability, impulse control and consequential thinking compared to the primates we descended from. That's the only real reason why we do things like cultivate civilization, contemplate consciousness and conceptualize self-awareness. Also, some of the more social nuances that go along with being human and the way we laugh at things we find funny (similar to how dogs bark at stuff they pay attention to or how cats meow for attention).

Considering the above, the separation between animal and human is more metaphorical than anything else - like when someone does something impulsive based upon their innate carnal instincts and regrets it or is shamed for doing it; it's typically a result of doing behaviours that aren't well thought through or done impulsively based upon our mammalian or middle brain hijacking or displacing what our frontal lobes do for us.

Religion is a way of tapping into the things our frontal lobes afforded us with a touch of our emotional predispositions that govern our need for connection and frustration with not being able to fully understand and control everything - there's merit to the "religion is the opiate of the masses" thing but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

But yeah, circling back - of course we're animals. What, apart from what some religious doctrines tell us, suggests that we aren't?

Frankly, it would be uncomfortable for me to contemplate that we aren't simply animals.

When I think of the slave trade and the holocaust and the nuclear arms race, I have doubts about that. Grave doubts.

Why?

 

[exchemist]

I would think so.

Every living organism on this planet is an animal and it's quite clear that humans are no exception to the rule.

I do get curious as to what people mean that we are higher than the animals. I'm sure such reasons given will be quite interesting to read.

You don't mean that. Plants, fungi and bacteria are also living organisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

when someone describes another human as being like an animal, that's not considered by most a compliment.

In the context of this thread (aka, the scientific classification of biological entities), it's neither a compliment nor an insult. It's just a biological fact.

And I'm speaking of the category, not necessarily someone describing a person as a sweet kitten. Of course, some might describe another as a sheep, and that could be a compliment, while others might say he's stubborn like a goat or mule. Mules and goats and kittens generally don't talk in human language anyway, so I would figure most (humans) might conclude cats, kittens, sheep, goats, etc. cannot describe to humans what they mean in English, Russian, Swahili, Spanish, etc.

None of this is relevant to the thread.
We are talking about biological classification. Not about colloquial non-scientific use of the terms.

 

[exchemist]

Of course humans are animals.

Yes we're a different species to other species of animal but all species of animals are different from each other.

We just developed a really remarkable evolutionary trait being our advanced frontal lobes which led to capacity for more refined rational thought, reasoning ability, impulse control and consequential thinking compared to the primates we descended from. That's the only real reason why we do things like cultivate civilization, contemplate consciousness and conceptualize self-awareness. Also, some of the more social nuances that go along with being human and the way we laugh at things we find funny (similar to how dogs bark at stuff they pay attention to or how cats meow for attention).

Considering the above, the separation between animal and human is more metaphorical than anything else - like when someone does something impulsive based upon their innate carnal instincts and regrets it or is shamed for doing it; it's typically a result of doing behaviours that aren't well thought through or done impulsively based upon our mammalian or middle brain hijacking or displacing what our frontal lobes do for us.

Religion is a way of tapping into the things our frontal lobes afforded us with a touch of our emotional predispositions that govern our need for connection and frustration with not being able to fully understand and control everything - there's merit to the "religion is the opiate of the masses" thing but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

But yeah, circling back - of course we're animals. What, apart from what some religious doctrines tell us, suggests that we aren't?

Frankly, it would be uncomfortable for me to contemplate that we aren't simply animals.



Why?

Regarding religion, I have always seen the story of the Fall as a metaphor for the acquisition by Man of moral awareness: the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's like growing up. Animals - and small children - are innocent because they can't tell the difference, but once we know it, we still make bad choices, knowing they are bad. That's what Orignal Sin and the Fall signify, I think.

So we are animals, but with a capacity for reason and moral awareness that is unique, at least on this planet. And that gives us unique responsibilities, which is more or less where religion kicks off.

 

[metis]

My reply was more simple "Humans are animals" restricts humans too much. So, it's not an accurate (correct) description of humans.

But biologically that is what we are.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In my view, saying that animals are significantly lesser/different in kind from humans is to restrict animals too much...just sayin'

 

[IndigoChild5559]

oh is that all. Just more sophisticated... a little or a lot more sophisticated?

Yes, YoursTrue. A car is simply a more sophisticated tool.

 

[Bear Wild]

Animals - and small children - are innocent because they can't tell the difference

What do you mean animals do not know the difference? Please explain how you know this to be true.

 

[exchemist]

What do you mean animals do not know the difference? Please explain how you know this to be true.

No, too tedious to discuss.