Are humans somehow better than other animals?

[Valjean]

It is a good argument, but you neglect one other reason that we are unalike from other mammles. Our level of conciencness and our level of intellegence is another deciding factor. Our cranial capacity is a decisive factor, which does make us better than other mammals. If the mammal has never made a particular contribution to society other than killings or allowing to live, how can it possibly be considered at the level of a mammal who has?

What bizarre and speciesist ideas!

There's no reason to believe our "level of consciousness" isn't exactly the same as any other mammal.

You seem to be basing your concept of "betterness" on intelligence and contributions to society. I'll ignore cranial capacity, as many large animals have greater capacities than hominids and I assume you meant to tie it in to intelligence.

If goodness is based on intelligence then bright people are better than dim ones. I think most people would dispute this.
Intelligence gives us flexibility and the ability do dominate other animals and exploit our environment creatively, but other animals have other abilities that enable them to do similar things. Some animals are faster, some have better senses of smell, sight or hearing. All animals except hominids seem able to establish a place for themselves in the life-web and exploit it indefinitely. You could make the case that any of these superior qualities would make a species "better" than humans.

Your mention of "contributions to society." This strikes me as an incredibly arrogant and species-centered concept.
It is not another animal's job to contribute to society. They do not exist to serve us. They might, in fact, well condemn us for not contributing to their societies. We are, in fact, destroying many of their societies with our campaign of environmental and habitat destruction.

It is the "job" of an organism to play its part in the maintenance of the global life-web that keeps our planet alive and healthy.
A deer must have a forest. A forest must have proper soil. Proper soil must have a fungal network. A fungal network must have a healthy bacterial community, &c, &c, &c. Organisms are intricately woven into their environments. Life depends on each doing its job. Those that do their jobs are "better" than those that do not.

Hominids do not do their jobs. They have removed themselves from the ecological life-web and become parasitic. They destroy the ozone shield, pollute the atmosphere and water. They change the climate, sterilize the soils, desertify the land.

We are in the midst of a catastrophic collapse of the planetary ecology. (The last such collapse was 65,000,000 years ago). This planetary die-off is due entirely to the efforts of a single species.

Are we the best species, Maxist, or the worst?

 

[The Grey Wolf]

How do we measure value, meaningfulness, or destiny?

A chicken may well consider its life more valuable than yours. I don't know that there is an objective yardstick for value.

"Meaningfulness" is also rather subjective, and I question weather it is actually a factor in "betterness."

Ultimate destiny is a matter for soothsayers, and if we judge value by mundane destiny then you'd have to hold that the poor and underprivileged are less than the powerful

Yes, but I doubt any thing else would taste as good battered up with 11 original herbs and spices. Mmmmm... *droooool*:bounce

 

[The Grey Wolf]

What bizarre and speciesist ideas!

There's no reason to believe our "level of consciousness" isn't exactly the same as any other mammal.

You seem to be basing your concept of "betterness" on intelligence and contributions to society. I'll ignore cranial capacity, as many large animals have greater capacities than hominids and I assume you meant to tie it in to intelligence.

If goodness is based on intelligence then bright people are better than dim ones. I think most people would dispute this.
Intelligence gives us flexibility and the ability do dominate other animals and exploit our environment creatively, but other animals have other abilities that enable them to do similar things. Some animals are faster, some have better senses of smell, sight or hearing. All animals except hominids seem able to establish a place for themselves in the life-web and exploit it indefinitely. You could make the case that any of these superior qualities would make a species "better" than humans.

Your mention of "contributions to society." This strikes me as an incredibly arrogant and species-centered concept.
It is not another animal's job to contribute to society. They do not exist to serve us. They might, in fact, well condemn us for not contributing to their societies. We are, in fact, destroying many of their societies with our campaign of environmental and habitat destruction.

It is the "job" of an organism to play its part in the maintenance of the global life-web that keeps our planet alive and healthy.
A deer must have a forest. A forest must have proper soil. Proper soil must have a fungal network. A fungal network must have a healthy bacterial community, &c, &c, &c. Organisms are intricately woven into their environments. Life depends on each doing its job. Those that do their jobs are "better" than those that do not.

Hominids do not do their jobs. They have removed themselves from the ecological life-web and become parasitic. They destroy the ozone shield, pollute the atmosphere and water. They change the climate, sterilize the soils, desertify the land.

We are in the midst of a catastrophic collapse of the planetary ecology. (The last such collapse was 65,000,000 years ago). This planetary die-off is due entirely to the efforts of a single species.

Are we the best species, Maxist, or the worst?

We are the worst specieces on the planet. We care only for ourselves and our "great" society. We will bring about our own destruction. My only regret is that I will probably not see it in my life time. All the talk about the "Global Warming" and their plans to halt its advance, I fear, will be too little, too late. We will burn by the suns rays and Apollo and Ra and all the other forgotten sun gods and godesses will have thier revenge for being lost to history.

 

[frg001]

We are the worst specieces on the planet. We care only for ourselves and our "great" society. We will bring about our own destruction. My only regret is that I will probably not see it in my life time. All the talk about the "Global Warming" and their plans to halt its advance, I fear, will be too little, too late. We will burn by the suns rays and Apollo and Ra and all the other forgotten sun gods and godesses will have thier revenge for being lost to history.

don't be so bloody pessimistic.
We are better than other animals, because we are we. All animals have a self survival instinct.
That doen't mean we shouldn't be respectful to lesser species. Quite the opposite. We have a unique gift in this world to be able to change it, to decide wether we should take the meat, to wonder at it's beauty. Why wish for the end of the only animal that has this? We are all amazing, and once we realise that we need to turn things around, maybe we will. My only regret is that I cannot live for the next 1000 years to see it happen.

 

[Valjean]

Don't you love following the elegant reasoning of great minds?......

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be respectful to lesser species. Quite the opposite. We have a unique gift in this world to be able to change it, to decide whether we should take the meat, to wonder at it's beauty. Why wish for the end of the only animal that has this? We are all amazing, and once we realise that we need to turn things around, maybe we will. My only regret is that I cannot live for the next 1000 years to see it happen.

You have not yet made the case for non-humans being "lesser", Froggie. You seem to assume that our superiority is self-evident and needs no defense. This is reminiscent of the attitude of Southern US planters toward people of African extraction during the 19th century.
You talk about "self preservation" as a universal instinct and right. Yet hominids have, in arrogating short-term benefit, endangered themselves by damaging the life-web that sustains them.

A successful parasite does not seriously harm its host. Hominids are a relatively recent phenomenon, yet in a scarce ten thousand years, we've had an ecological impact almost as great as the K-T insult of 65,000,000 years ago. We are on the brink of destroying ourselves and taking much of the Natural world with us. We are more like a virulent pathogen than a parasite. By destroying our host, the Earth, we destroy ourselves.

You argue that we have a right to exploit other animals because we can. This is a flagrant might-makes-right argument. This is the same justification Western, "civilized'" countries used to justify their exploitation of India, the Congo, Central and South America and most of sub-Saharan Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is the justification of the Aryan "master race" during the 1940s.

Be glad that you won't live "for the next 1000 years" -- and see hominids reduced, by their own hubris and dearth of forsight, to a handful of sickly creatures eking out a pitiful existence on a sere and sterile planet.

 

[frg001]

Don't you love following the elegant reasoning of great minds?......




You have not yet made the case for non-humans being "lesser", Froggie. You seem to assume that our superiority is self-evident and needs no defense. This is reminiscent of the attitude of Southern US planters toward people of African extraction during the 19th century.

I don't necessarily think aninals are lesser beings. But every species regards its own as the most important. Humans are no different. The planters v africans is unfair, as they are the same species. That is just racial predudice.

You talk about "self preservation" as a universal instinct and right. Yet hominids have, in arrogating short-term benefit, endangered themselves by damaging the life-web that sustains them.

As do other animals. The difference being that we(in the developed world) don't die off naturally when we exhaust our food or destroy our habitat. We have cheated death by our intelligence.

A successful parasite does not seriously harm its host. Hominids are a relatively recent phenomenon, yet in a scarce ten thousand years, we've had an ecological impact almost as great as the K-T insult of 65,000,000 years ago. We are on the brink of destroying ourselves and taking much of the Natural world with us. We are more like a virulent pathogen than a parasite. By destroying our host, the Earth, we destroy ourselves.

Indeed , we are not a parasite, and steps (albeit slow ones) are being made to try to reverse this trend

You argue that we have a right to exploit other animals because we can. This is a flagrant might-makes-right argument. This is the same justification Western, "civilized'" countries used to justify their exploitation of India, the Congo, Central and South America and most of sub-Saharan Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is the justification of the Aryan "master race" during the 1940s.

I don't think I did...But even if I believed we had such a right, I do place far more value on human life, and again quoting examples of humans exploiting otherr humans is not fair.

Be glad that you won't live "for the next 1000 years" -- and see hominids reduced, by their own hubris and dearth of forsight, to a handful of sickly creatures eking out a pitiful existence on a sere and sterile planet.

I have a far more optimistic outlook on life. I do believe we'll turn it around.

 

[Flappycat]

As far as long-term capacity for survival as a species, I'd say humans, then their favorite pets. We're not necessarily limited to terrestrial existence.

 

[finalfrogo]

Good question; I don't know. Some people don't believe that animals have a soul. If they've ever had a pet they truly loved, they'd think otherwise.

It is my belief that everything in the universe has some degree of sentience-- even "lifeless" material. Therefore, it must all be respected.

 

[Master Vigil]

As a Taoist I view humans at the bottom of a so called "ladder". I see the animals, and in their simplicity they are happy. And I see humans, and in their complexity they are unhappy. From my experience with working with both animals and humans, I see the so called "intellect" of humans as an illusion we like to create. However, my definition of "intellect" is different than most humans. I don't see our ability to engineer skyscrapers, cars, microwaves, etc... as evidence of our "betterness". I see it simply as something we as a species are good at. We cannot run as fast as a cheetah, fly like an albatross, etc... So we have to create things to do it for us.

Also, we carry too much baggage spiritually, psychologically, and materially that we cannot even come close to achieving the "oneness" that the rest of nature possesses. So we create religions to try to immitate what our natural animal spirit desires.

Why is the ocean king of all streams? Because it lies lower than they. We should all be so humble.

 

[Ormiston]

As a Taoist I view humans at the bottom of a so called "ladder". I see the animals, and in their simplicity they are happy. And I see humans, and in their complexity they are unhappy. From my experience with working with both animals and humans, I see the so called "intellect" of humans as an illusion we like to create. However, my definition of "intellect" is different than most humans. I don't see our ability to engineer skyscrapers, cars, microwaves, etc... as evidence of our "betterness". I see it simply as something we as a species are good at. We cannot run as fast as a cheetah, fly like an albatross, etc... So we have to create things to do it for us.

Also, we carry too much baggage spiritually, psychologically, and materially that we cannot even come close to achieving the "oneness" that the rest of nature possesses. So we create religions to try to immitate what our natural animal spirit desires.

Why is the ocean king of all streams? Because it lies lower than they. We should all be so humble.

Good point of view. I believe we are the same as animals. If we could give our gift (curse?) of intellect/wisdom to an animal, it would suffer from the same spiritual ailments that we do. It would wonder about the unknown and it's "place" in nature. The animals don't just know instinctively about "oneness", they simply accept it out of necessity. I envy them at times.

 

[Master Vigil]

The animals don't just know instinctively about "oneness", they simply accept it out of necessity. I envy them at times.

I would even take it further and say they don't need to accept it or deny it. They just are. It is a BEingness that we all strive for, but our "intelligence" hinders us. I remember a little while ago in an "evolution vs. ID" thread, someone posted a comment that summed it up nicely. (Even though they intended to offer it as evidence for ID )

"If we keep teaching people that we are just animals, people are going to start acting like animals." That is the best advice I've heard in a long time.

 

[Ormiston]

I would even take it further and say they don't need to accept it or deny it. They just are. It is a BEingness that we all strive for, but our "intelligence" hinders us. I remember a little while ago in an "evolution vs. ID" thread, someone posted a comment that summed it up nicely. (Even though they intended to offer it as evidence for ID )

"If we keep teaching people that we are just animals, people are going to start acting like animals." That is the best advice I've heard in a long time.

I have to agree with you 100%! As I've believed for a long time, the most beautiful elements of life are simple ones. Well put Master Vigil.

 

[St0ne]

Do we not already act like animals, i see it everyday, not always in a bad way, I think an animals nature or 'acts' are more natural than many of our own.

 

[theo1]

What would you say about vegetarians and meat lovers? Is it wrong to eat an animal? But to think about the fast food restaurant chains and imagine how the animals, that people eat, are being treated their whole life on farms with no space at all. I'm not sure conclusively for myself but so far I think it's okay to eat an animal as long as it wasn't tortured through their lives to get on our dinner table and it is old. Just my thoughts.

 

[Sunstone]

It often seems to me that humans are the most dysfunctional of the Great Apes.

 

[Atheist_Dave]

I envy the simplicity of animals, I watch my dog running around after a ball or something, and I just see pure living, not worries about anything, no nonsense like money or jobs. I think the human race would do much better if they accepted the animal in ourselves, instead of trying to distance ourselves.

No "animal" ever destroyed countries, murdered thousands, and invented lethal religion.

Frubals to Master Vigil, I agree with that post 100%

Peace x

 

[ButcherGEIN]

actually, we're worse off than animals in a sense because animals are incapable of evil. They operate instinctually. Evil can only form from the ability to make your own choices... good as well.

 

[chillmode1]

How do we know that animals aren't destined for something more? Maybe they have a very special role in this life or in the next.

i thought animals coudnt get into heaven. wouldnt that mean they are a lesor being , or do they go to animal heaven?

 

[Krie]

Like i have said in previous replies. Humans suck. Animals are better than humans. After all they did take care of the world far better than we have. lol. but it is true. you must admitt your faults to fix them.

 

[Æsahættr]

Do we not already act like animals, i see it everyday, not always in a bad way, I think an animals nature or 'acts' are more natural than many of our own.

I hear something along the lines of this all the time. I get what people mean when they say it, but "more natural" is just completly the wrong phrase to use. So many people talk about humans not being natural, acting unnaturally etc. Humans are part of nature just like all other species. Anything we do is natural. In doing it, we are demonstrating that it is a natural thing to do. I'm not saying that I don't think that there are plenty of things that humans do as a species that are very bad, but the suggestion that they're not "natural" things to do just seems ridiculous to me.

I feel that I ought to stick up for humans a bit, this thread seems to have gotten rather one-sided. In the last few posts, I see that other animals are less dysfunctional than us, happier in their simplicity, and have taken care of the world better.

In my opinion, there's nothing particularly desirable about the simplicity of animals. I think it's better to be an unhappy intelligent self-aware being than a happy, less intelligent and less-self aware one. I think it's better to learn to understand all the misery that exists, and to learn to cope with it, than to never be aware of misery and suffering going on around you.

One of the things that I take very strongly to in humanism is the concept that "man is the measure of all things." If we weren't here, there might be less ugly buildings and pollution, but the world wouldn't be beautiful. I don't believe that beauty exists as an objective thing. The only beauty that exists is when we see something and find it beautiful. The best thing we do for the world is to appreciate it. While some other animals might do that to a small degree, no-one could disagree that we are far beyond any other species in our capacity to be interested in things that have no significance for us in terms of survival, mating etc. If another species was able to evolve to our level of intelligence and self-awareness without the negative aspects as well then hats off to them. But until they do, we are the only species that we know of to do that.

Of course we shouldn't forget all the negative sides of humanity, and do all we can to change them. But we shouldn't forget the positive sides either.

(sorry if I went on for a bit)