Is war a humane notion? A human notion?

[Secret Chief]

I am not.
I can speak and write, and in 5 languages...which means I have evolved from that stage.

A winking face changes not the facts. Humans are animals.

 

[Estro Felino]

A winking face changes not the facts. Humans are animals.

When a chimp writes an essay about his/her life, I will say that we are still animals.

If he/she doesn't, it means we have successfully evolved, after millions of years.

 

[Estro Felino]

You might not have noticed that
he's the leading candidate in the
2024 election.

This thread is about the notion of war, in general.
So you do agree with the OP?

 

[Revoltingest]

This thread is about the notion of war, in general.
So you do agree with the OP?

I agree that humans are animals.
We differ only in that we (not all)
wear digital watches.

 

[HonestJoe]

We are different than animals because we can engage in thinking.

Plenty of other animals think to greater or lesser extent. We can't know exactly how well (or indeed how differently) they think, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest some animals are much smarter than we've traditionally given them credit for. Also, loads of animals can do all sorts of things we can't. Having unique characteristics doesn't render any animal "above" or "outside" the overall animal kingdom. Our creative intelligence allows us to think we're better than all other animals (often that we're better than other humans too, hence war), but that doesn't make it true.

Survival instinct if what animals have.

And humans have survival instincts (if we didn't, we wouldn't survive). Because we are animals.

Extinction can be a problem to atheists who probably believe that they will go on living for eternity through their own offspring. (delusional).

That wasn't the point of mentioning extinction. The point was that for all of our "superior" intelligence and technology, we're as likely to destroy ourselves as thrive. It's another way in which we're different to other animals but not necessarily "better" than them.

But we theists believe in an afterlife, so we couldn't care less that there are no humans left on Earth, because the afterlife is what matters.

It seems to me that you're the one more concerned about whether we leave anything meaningful behind when we die. Why is passing things on via our offspring any better or worse a concept than passing things on via an afterlife?

 

[Estro Felino]

Plenty of other animals think to greater or lesser extent. We can't know exactly how well (or indeed how differently) they think, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest some animals are much smarter than we've traditionally given them credit for. Also, loads of animals can do all sorts of things we can't. Having unique characteristics doesn't render any animal "above" or "outside" the overall animal kingdom. Our creative intelligence allows us to think we're better than all other animals (often that we're better than other humans too, hence war), but that doesn't make it true.

One could try to convince a lion to become a vegetarian. But he can't understand our language, I guess.
And even if he did, he wouldn't be smart enough to understand the benefits of a vegetarian diet.

And humans have survival instincts (if we didn't, we wouldn't survive). Because we are animals.

We don't have a survival instinct as animals do...since so many people give their life to save those whom they love.
Let's say that some have evolved from the animal stage and some haven't. That's better.

That wasn't the point of mentioning extinction. The point was that for all of our "superior" intelligence and technology, we're as likely to destroy ourselves as thrive. It's another way in which we're different to other animals but not necessarily "better" than them.

Animals don't use contraception when they have sex.
Animals can't control themselves whenever they are in heat.
The fact here is that humans have evolved so much, that they idealize sex, in a way that transcends pure lust.
Read Freud's "Beyond the principle of pleasure".

 

[We Never Know]

We are still 100% animals. The scariest animal on the planet actually
Animals fear humans more than lions as 'super predators'.
A new study, published in Current Biology has reported that humans instill a level of fear in animals that significantly surpasses that of lions and other natural predators. The findings revealed that animals, such as giraffes, leopards, zebras, warthogs and hyenas, were twice as likely to flee, and they abandoned waterholes 40% faster in response to human stimuli than they did when encountering lions, or even hunting sounds such as gunshots and barking dogs.

Yes. Humans are the ultimate apex predator.

 

[HonestJoe]

One could try to convince a lion to become a vegetarian. But he can't understand our language, I guess.
And even if he did, he wouldn't be smart enough to understand the benefits of a vegetarian diet.

That has literally nothing to do with what I posted and doesn't support your position. Is it that you failed to understand my point or did you understand it but have nothing relevant to challenge it?

We don't have a survival instinct as animals do...since so many people give their life to save those whom they love.

So do many other animals, especially parents protecting their young. Regardless, that doesn't entirely eliminate individual survival instinct. Both characteristics are a function of wider species survival. Species with individuals whose instincts mean they survive to bare young and protect their young to survive in turn are the species which continue to exist. Species who don't have those characteristics generally wont survive.

We very much still have our animal survival instincts, which is why we jump and draw back from sudden sounds or movement, why we get hungry when we need energy, why we commonly fear the dark, heights and dangerous animals, why we have sexual attraction to other people. Our intelligence does allow us to rationalise and overcome those instincts in some situations (which isn't always a good thing), but we still have them and are still strongly influenced by them (hence, among other things, war).

Let's say that some have evolved from the animal stage and some haven't. That's better.

No, because it's still factually wrong. The species homo sapiens, and therefore all individual human beings, full meet the formal definition of "animal". You can say we're special animals, unique animals or the "best" animals, but you can't say we're not animals at all.

The fact here is that humans have evolved so much, that they idealize sex, in a way that transcends pure lust.

To an extent, though I'd suggest that is more a function of society than biological evolution. Yet again though, I'm still not saying humans don't have some unique characteristics. That still doesn't mean we're not animals.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest
You asked me a question about Trump.
Trump has never started any war in his four years of presidency. .

Trump still poses a huge war mongering risk.

Trump suggested at fundraiser he ‘would have bombed’ Russia and China

The former president’s comments came as a surprise to some donors

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I mean...in the Nineteenth Century a great man called Charles Darwin explained that humans were animals, in ancient times. Animals that evolved into something more intelligent and sophisticated that can think and than can use the word, instead of violence.

Au contraire, yesterday I was watching a documentary about the savanna... animals fighting against one another and killing each other for defending their territory.
War is an animal notion. It's everywhere in the animal world.

The fact that wars still exist and that people still fabricate weapons demonstrate that we are not any different than them...we wage wars among different species and among similar species.

So I was asking: why do people (assuming people have evolved from the animal stage) call themselves human but still fabricate weapons that they use to wage wars?

Thank you in advance.

It’s different for this reason.

Animals fight because they have to, humans fight because they want to.

 

[Estro Felino]

It’s different for this reason.

Animals fight because they have to, humans fight because they want to.

Does it mean that men have become worse than animals?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Does it mean that men have become worse than animals?

Don’t know.

 

[Estro Felino]

Don’t know.

I advise you to watch this movie Entrusted.
It shows that several Germans, Italians and French people saved so many Jews from extermination. They gave their life.
It shows that some humans have evolved from the animal stage. Others are still animals.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I advise you to watch this movie Entrusted.
It shows that several Germans, Italians and French people saved so many Jews from extermination. They gave their life.
It shows that some humans have evolved from the animal stage. Others are still animals.

That is a dangerous way to think though.

The Nazis believed some people were still animals also.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fact that wars still exist and that people still fabricate weapons demonstrate that we are not any different than them...we wage wars among different species and among similar species.

So I was asking: why do people (assuming people have evolved from the animal stage) call themselves human but still fabricate weapons that they use to wage wars?

I do not understand the above "given {A} why {B}" formulation. How is it any different than:

Homo sapiens have two eyes just like toads, so why do homo sapiens call themselves homo sapiens?​

 

[Estro Felino]

I do not understand the above "given {A} why {B}" formulation. How is it any different than:

Homo sapiens have two eyes just like toads, so why do homo sapiens call themselves homo sapiens?​

This is more about philosophy, not biology.
Biologically speaking, scientists can define Homo Sapiens Sapiens as Animalia. That's true.

Philosophically and theologically speaking (evolution has also philosophical implications), is man an animal? Or is he something else, more sophisticated?

 

[Estro Felino]

That is a dangerous way to think though.

I don't think so.
Because I have my Christian faith that tells me that every living being must be respected. Even animals.

The Nazis believed some people were still animals also.

The Nazis used to kill their own peers too. Fellow Germans. Nazis were assassins, period.
If they didn't feel any emotion while doing what they were doing, well...that's what the absence of empathy in animals, entails.

 

[metis]

So I was asking: why do people (assuming people have evolved from the animal stage) call themselves human but still fabricate weapons that they use to wage wars?

Unfortunately, because humans go to war as far back as we can take human history. Even our closest relatives, the chimps, go to war. Wish it wasn't so, but it's the reality.

 

[HonestJoe]

Philosophically and theologically speaking (evolution has also philosophical implications), is man an animal? Or is he something else, more sophisticated?

Why not both? Why do you feel the need to distinguish humans from (other) animals to recognise and acknowledge our unique characteristics?

It is this kind of philosophical concept that allowed for some many groups of people to be defined as less than human and therefore not due any of rights or freedoms humans have, to essentially be treated "like animals" (and in some cases, still does). Recognising that we are all animals and still have so much in common with those animals we typically consider "lesser" is a vital balance to the blind arrogance that inevitably comes from our differences.

Because I have my Christian faith that tells me that every living being must be respected. Even animals.

But not to the same extent or in the same way as humans. Christianity presents animals as something put on Earth for humans, to be dominated and used. Would you be context if you were only "respected" by other people to the same extent as a farm animal or pet?

 

[Estro Felino]

But not to the same extent or in the same way as humans. Christianity presents animals as something put on Earth for humans, to be dominated and used. Would you be context if you were only "respected" by other people to the same extent as a farm animal or pet?

I am speaking of philosophy and theology, here.
And those who conceived the Holocaust, for instance, or those who committed so many evil crimes against humanity during WW2...well...in order to do those things and then go to bed as if nothing had happened, I need to assume that they are soulless people.
And the absence of a soul implies the absence of feelings, like empathy, and remorse.

Since theologians often say that animals don't have a soul as humans do, but just some universal spirit within them, I cannot but conclude they are very similar to animals.