Human supremacy

[Druidus]

Who says animals don't discuss supremacy and such?

This, I have to say, is ridiculous. They do not have the intellectual capacity to do so.

He did not by any means need the meat, but he loved the hunt, the process..

Serial killers are often known to "love the hunt" and spend days watching their victims. This does not make murder correct.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In terms of duration as a species, the jury is still out on Homo sapiens.

But we're not talking about duration. If we were, all applause would go to the Algae with ants (perhaps) getting honorable mention.

We can see many quantitative differences: big-bigger, strong-stronger, fast-faster, but we represent a difference of quality which should be a source of persistent wonder. In my opinion, it is this qualitative difference that makes our willingness to slaughter each other and cannibalize biodiversity such an unpardonable crime.

 

[wjb2008]

This, I have to say, is ridiculous. They do not have the intellectual capacity to do so.

I'd put that in the "arrogant" category. How do you know they don't? You ever been a dolphin or a gorilla or a tortoise?

Serial killers are often known to "love the hunt" and spend days watching their victims. This does not make murder correct.

That depends on your moral code, I suppose. Psychopaths by definition don't distinguish "right" from "wrong." Now, I've never killed a man but personally, but I'd almost consider that a form of enlightenment.

 

[Druidus]

I'd put that in the "arrogant" category. How do you know they don't? You ever been a dolphin or a gorilla or a tortoise?

Perhaps I have. Either way, one needs a certain type of brain to contemplate sych a question. I am unaware of any other animal with such a brain besides humans, with the possible exception of dolphins.

I wouldn't consider it arrogant, I would consider it logical.

However, this does not make us superior.

 

[Sunstone]

But we're not talking about duration. If we were, all applause would go to the Algae with ants (perhaps) getting honorable mention.

Duration is one way of looking at it. I don't necessarily recommend looking at superiority in terms of duration for precisely the reason you mention, Deut, but I cannot deny that how long something lasts is a way that many people measure value. For instance: many people see the meaning of life as being preparation for an eternity in heaven, and would see life as less meaningful without the promise of an enternity in heaven.

We can see many quantitative differences: big-bigger, strong-stronger, fast-faster, but we represent a difference of quality which should be a source of persistent wonder. In my opinion, it is this qualitative difference that makes our willingness to slaughter each other and cannibalize biodiversity such an unpardonable crime.

This makes a great deal of sense to me. A great deal of sense.

 

[Draka]

Who knows? Maybe there are species out there who communicate with each other in ways we could never imagine. Maybe they do not communicate and debate superiority because they are above such things. Maybe not. We are not capable of knowing so to presume one way or another is pretty pointless.

I do agree with Druidus in regards to the "stalking their prey" thing. No matter how much time or stuff you put yourself through to get to your victim it does not make the killing validated.

 

[ch'ang]

the real point is that without the other animals and plants and protists human couldn't survive so if you look at superiority like that then we are basically just leeches on the ecosystem

 

[kreeden]

Great. That suggests a perfect division of labor: you commune with the grab grass and gophers and I'll read Shakespeare, listen to Mozart, applaud ballet, and marvel at science.

Cool . You do that . Me , I will do all of that AND sing with Raven ... well , all of that except for the ballet thing ...

I agree with Sunstone when he says ," the answer entirely depends on how you define terms like "supremacy", "superiority", and so forth. " In ways we are superior then most , as we are on the top of the food chain . But at the same time , a single celled animal can drop us in your tracks . And if you ever come face to face with a grizzly when you have no weapon other then your hands and teeth , make sure to explain to him just how superior you are ...

 

[kreeden]

the real point is that without the other animals and plants and protists human couldn't survive so if you look at superiority like that then we are basically just leeches on the ecosystem

We are a part of the ecosystem . Only we have gotten out of control . Ants will build a hill , but they move on before they destroy everything . We now have nowhere to move on to . IMHO our sucess as a species has made us arrogent , untill something like the tsunami last Christmas happens to put us in our place .

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Are humans above all other forms of life...

Seems we've had this question posed several different ways in several different threads, but peoples' answers and reasoning don't seem to change.

Simple answer, yes. Human's cognitive capabilities do make us superior to other animals. Maybe I'll go back and read the other threads to see if people are copying and posting their arguments, otherwise, it's not really worth my time.

 

[justa_gurl]

Simple question really (and one of my favorite topics in general). Are humans above all other forms of life?

Hmm... i guess if i were to judge humans, critique mankind by how effectively it uses and utilizes what evolution provides it, then i would have to answer 'No' we are not above all other forms of life in value or importance. Why? Because while animals may kill without purpose, exhaust their resources, and inhibit the survival of other species, we alone claim to 'know better' and possess the ability to correct and/or prevent such ill actions by others.

Being set apart by an intellect that allows us to reason, innovate, and improvise would be impressive if it weren't for what do we inevitably do with this 'blessing', namely reap unimaginable havoc on the rest of life and damage ourselves in the process. We are the most wasteful, neglectful, and destructive of species ever to understand what 'evil' is. At best i'd say we're equal, cognizance making up for a lack of physical prowess. At worst, i'm tempted to say we're a plague on the earth.</shrug..]

 

[Ormiston]

I believe the answer to such a question is simple. The results speak for themselves. The use of human terms such as "supreme" only confuse the issue. I ask, which group of animals has the greatest degree of control over our immediate surroundings? Obviously it is the humans.

 

[painted wolf]

bacteria
Viruses
insect pests

wa:do

 

[kreeden]

I believe the answer to such a question is simple. The results speak for themselves. The use of human terms such as "supreme" only confuse the issue. I ask, which group of animals has the greatest degree of control over our immediate surroundings? Obviously it is the humans.

And if you were dropped into he middle of the Arctic , or into a desert , by yourself and without tools , how much " control over your immediate surroundings " would you have ? Many insects show a great amount of control over their enviroment also , such as the Ants I talked about earlier . And like Ants , we only have that control as a hive . So , what happens when the hive gets too large ???

 

[CaptainXeroid]

And if you were dropped into he middle of the Arctic , or into a desert , by yourself and without tools , how much " control over your immediate surroundings " would you have ?...

If you re-read the post, you'll see it says 'greatest degree of control over our immediate surroundings', not absolute control over any surrounding. It appears that taking the other side's argument to a ridiculous extreme and disproving that passes as a valid argument even though it really isn't.:tsk: Further evidence that this is a pointless debate.

 

[kreeden]

If you re-read the post, you'll see it says 'greatest degree of control over our immediate surroundings', not absolute control over any surrounding. It appears that taking the other side's argument to a ridiculous extreme and disproving that passes as a valid argument even though it really isn't.:tsk: Further evidence that this is a pointless debate.

And if you read my full post , I believe that you will find that I'm using those extreme excamples to show that we don't have that much more control over our enviroment then some other animals .

But then , as you say this is a pointless debate , yet still post to it , I would assume that you are supporting the fact that we are NOT superior to animals , as I see no other animals here other then humans making pointless comments ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And if you were dropped into he middle of the Arctic , or into a desert , by yourself and without tools , how much " control over your immediate surroundings " would you have ?

Apparently just enough to construct strawman sophistries.

 

[michel]

Apparently just enough to construct strawman sophistries.

Not without paper and pencil, he wouldnt.:biglaugh:

 

[wjb2008]

And if you were dropped into he middle of the Arctic , or into a desert , by yourself and without tools , how much " control over your immediate surroundings " would you have?

I don't agree with this answer, but I'd have to point something out: If you drop ONE of each species of anything in the middle of arctic, another ONE of each species of everything in the desert, and another ONE in the middle of the Amazon, which species is liable to have the greatest impact? Even batter, what if you drop just ten in each of those places? I'd have to say humans would probably clear out the jucgle, tunnel through the ice, and... expand oases to a greater degree than any other species.

 

[kreeden]

Apparently just enough to construct strawman sophistries.

And who am I trying to decieve ? I'm just stating an opinion here . You don't think that ants control their enviroment ? It is possible that I could have chosen a better excample ? But as I see it , the " human hive " is quite a bit like that of some insects . Each of us have our own strenghts and weaknesses , and our survival is very much dependent upon the combined strenghts of the whole . Does that make any one of the whole { or hive } inferior ? In some ways perhaps , but only in how hard it would be to replace that one .

Why is straw inferior to .. say hemp ? Hemp tends to be stronger , but if you don't need that strenght ? It all depends upon the use you put it to .