Jump to content
hibini

Are humans more important than animals?

Recommended Posts

Okay guys, am I the only one? Today a girl I hate (for tons of reasons, don't let me get in to that) but is kinda friends with my friends came over to us and was like "YES! we chose to donate to tigers for our project". I said "don't you think humans are in more need of help then...tigers. I mean there is tons of suffering within humans." She got mad and was like "There are 6 billion humans and not that many tigers, the world is overpopulated so let the humans die for all I care!" I was like "umm...I don't think you would want to die". She overreacted, AGAIN.

 

Does everyone else think that tigers are way less important then humans. I mean, wouldn't you want to help out a starving child in Africa then help out poor suffering tiger. Tigers are important to me. But so are humans.

 

Anyway, what are your opinions? Am I crazy and ruthless? Or am I right about humans? Say you had a thousand bucks. How would you divide it between an animal charity and a human related charity (and not you please, even if the money sounds nice). Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, from a purely scientific standpoint, animals are more important, seeing as if they suddenly all died, humans would die as well, but if humans suddenly all died, pretty much everything on the planet would have an easier time surviving. Humans are vastly overpopulated though.

 

Its just the nature of a species to value themselves over the others, animals even do the same thing.

Edited by grimace

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly can't say that one is more important than the other.

 

All animals have a very important place in this planet, and the loss of just one species is devistating to the entire ecosystem. Think about this, what would the planet be like if there were no more house cats? Would rats and mice take over and spread disease?

 

But, on the other hand, humans are important part of the balance as well as my belief system tells me that humans were put on the planet to manage this world, including animals.

 

Where does one draw a line? There are billions of dollars of aid given to humans all the time. And I would bet the aid given to animals is much less.

 

So it is my belief that no one charity is more important than the others. And often helping humans does help animals exist as we remove the need to kill just to survive or we aid in improving the enviroment for the animals because we can change a human's way of life.

 

And for what it is worth, I would rather send money to a charity that helps animals (with a few exceptions) than to send money for humans. But in a disaster situation, humans are first always. Get humans stable, and they will help the animals next.

 

So I guess I didn't help you with an answer. I guess I am saying that neither is more important than the other.

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, wouldn't you want to help out a starving child in Africa then help out poor suffering tiger.

To be quite honest… not really. I would rather give money to a place that helps animals.

Share this post


Link to post

From my personal point of view, I have an aversion to humans, so I much prefer animals. However if the person/people in question are suffering I'll probably care more about them.

 

But animals of any kind take precendence over non-suffering people in my view.

 

But one is not more important than the other because everything is dependant on something else to live, so there isn't a way to define which one is more important.

 

When it comes down to charities it'd be either half and half or with 2/3 of the money heading to an animal charity.

Share this post


Link to post

To be quite honest… not really.  I would rather give money to a place that helps animals.

Especially if those are endangered animals.

 

Empathy for the members of your own species over those of others is an evolutionary advantage. However, being human, we are able to extend that empathy beyond the borders of our own species and appreciate the importance of something that, once lost, cannot be replaced, at least not yet or in the near future. That something is biodiversity. Especially if humans are responsible for its decrease.

 

Tigers make an excellent example, being reduced from a number of more than 100 thousand to merely 2k within a century.

Edited by lightbird

Share this post


Link to post

The population of tigers is too low, and the population of humans is too high. So yeah, I'd rather a bunch of humans died. If that had to be me, then fine. It's our own damn fault the population is too high anyway. It's not the tigers fault that we like hunting them into extinction.

 

I'll always donate to animal charities before human ones. Animal shelters that are full of dogs and cats waiting to be euthanized is completely our fault, and we need to own up to that and fix what we've done.

Share this post


Link to post
The population of tigers is too low, and the population of humans is too high. So yeah, I'd rather a bunch of humans died. If that had to be me, then fine. It's our own damn fault the population is too high anyway. It's not the tigers fault that we like hunting them into extinction.

 

I'll always donate to animal charities before human ones. Animal shelters that are full of dogs and cats waiting to be euthanized is completely our fault, and we need to own up to that and fix what we've done.

I completely agree with you. I rather donate to animal charities than human ones. It's not the fault of the animal that it gets in the pound and then gets euthanized because no one wants them. Its the irresponsibility of their owners that suddenly decides to give them away.

 

Same with the wild animals, its not the fault of the tiger, elephant or other animal that they get hunt down to nearly extinction, its the fault of the humans. And if I have spare money, I am very much willing to donate them to animal helping organizations, in hope that my little contribution will make life for the animals better.

 

Sometimes I think the planet would be better without us humans, and probably really would.

 

 

@ house cat thing:

 

The cats would become wild, they all have still hunting instincts and will learn again how to use them. Heck my cat brings me once a week a mouse or even a bird that was stupid enough to not haul their butt away before my cat gets them.

Share this post


Link to post
The population of tigers is too low, and the population of humans is too high. So yeah, I'd rather a bunch of humans died. If that had to be me, then fine. It's our own damn fault the population is too high anyway. It's not the tigers fault that we like hunting them into extinction.

 

I'll always donate to animal charities before human ones. Animal shelters that are full of dogs and cats waiting to be euthanized is completely our fault, and we need to own up to that and fix what we've done.

^ This, pretty much.

 

I confess, I'm not over fond of the human race. There are far, far too many of us in this world - and I don't much feel inclined to help that number keep growing. Animals, on the other hand, are suffering mostly *because* of the excessive over-population of humans. And they can also do very little to help themselves. To my mind giving my money to help animals charities is infiniety better than giving it to people-based ones.

 

I'm in agreement with the whole "planet would be better without humans." concept btw.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a confession, I don't really like humans all that much.

I know, I'm one of them but if you look at it one way, You can't really trust humans. I mean, I can trust my cat because she won't kill me in my sleep which humans tend to do ._.

Then there's the problem of overpopulation, Global Warming (Caused by humans), Etc.

So yeah, Animals in this case is a +

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only humanist here, apart from Hibini? Seriously, guys, looking at you all yelling "humans can't be trusted", "I'd rather have a bunch of humans die" and stuff... That's disgusting and immoral to say in any circumstances.

Anyway, it's your opinion. I'd say, Hibini, that you are right. Animals have no individual conscience we know of, and thus are unaware of the conceptions of modern society... That doesn't give us rights to torture them, of course, yet that makes the human life more valuable in comparison.

Have you seen a man suffering? Acking from cold and hunger? Not being able to find enough food to feed his youth? There is no species in our world that suffers more than rejected humans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Its just the nature of a species to value themselves over the others, animals even do the same thing.

Pretty much this. We're kind of pre-programmed to be bias. Those commercials that show crying kids for 5 minutes and try to guilt trip you probably don't help either =P

 

From a biological perspective, we're rather expendable. Starvation, famine, disease- it's all needed to keep the natural balance of things. Yes, even kids need to die to preserve our species and the environment =o

 

Animals have no individual conscience we know of, and thus are unaware of the conceptions of modern society... that makes the human life more valuable in comparison.

Whoa wait- what? :P

Edited by Nine

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, humans are the weeds of Earth. We're overpopulating and choking out the life forms of every other species out there. At this moment, I'd say animals are more important than humans because humans are dispensable. :l Every animal counts nowadays in a lot of species and most of it is mankind's fault. If one Siberian Tiger dies, it pretty much changes the whole population. Even if one airport blows up, the population of people isn't even glanced at. Hell, I bet even blowing up a whole US state won't do much to the world's population.

 

I'm part of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. No kids for me. And quite honestly, I think we may do the world good if more people didn't have kids for a while. Adopt or something. Let the oldest generation give room to the rest of us before trying to fill in space that isn't there. |D

Share this post


Link to post

Okay guys, am I the only one? Today a girl I hate (for tons of reasons, don't let me get in to that) but is kinda friends with my friends came over to us and was like "YES! we chose to donate to tigers for our project". I said "don't you think humans are in more need of help then...tigers. I mean there is tons of suffering within humans." She got mad and was like "There are 6 billion humans and not that many tigers, the world is overpopulated so let the humans die for all I care!" I was like "umm...I don't think you would want to die". She overreacted, AGAIN.

 

Does everyone else think that tigers are way less important then humans. I mean, wouldn't you want to help out a starving child in Africa then help out poor suffering tiger. Tigers are important to me. But so are humans.

 

Anyway, what are your opinions? Am I crazy and ruthless? Or am I right about humans? Say you had a thousand bucks. How would you divide it between an animal charity and a human related charity (and not you please, even if the money sounds nice). Discuss.

(is It someone who's name begins with E?)

 

Well anyways It depends... CERTAIN Species are more important... than humans, and most humans aren't as important as animals.. I think Animals are more important so... But its my opinion wink.gif

 

@Max Claire I totally Agree Humans cause way too many problems and don't fix em.

 

EDIT: Also if you think of Hawaii most of the species there are extinct, Why? Because of humans either killing them, or bringing other species that eat them.

Edited by rabbit153

Share this post


Link to post
Global Warming (Caused by humans),

Actually, this is a natural cycle that the Earth goes through all on it's own. About the time of the dinosaurs, it was mostly tropical, but then, BAM, ice age. Now it's heating again. That's just the way it is.

 

 

 

But my view of the human race is that we are violent, and destructive. I also think that we should protect endangered animals. However, I think suffering humans prioritze over non-suffering animals.

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only humanist here, apart from Hibini?

I would actually support organizations that help humans. I value humans more than animals. I am one of those people who would rather let a dog starve to death than a child.

That said, I do care about the environment and animals and if I had $1000, I probably would donate around 30% to animal-related causes. But one thing I have noticed is that while animals are going extinct because of human overpopulation, they are mostly being extincted near fast-growing countries with lots of poor, starving people. While it is true that species are dying even in the U.S., a high-population country, it is much more controlled here because we can afford to fix it. So, I believe that if we help and educate the people, the environment will be taken care of. The growth of extinctions in their major zones is caused by poor resources, education, and/or a lack of care.

Edited by sir_horsey_XIX

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only humanist here, apart from Hibini? Seriously, guys, looking at you all yelling "humans can't be trusted", "I'd rather have a bunch of humans die" and stuff... That's disgusting and immoral to say in any circumstances.

Anyway, it's your opinion. I'd say, Hibini, that you are right. Animals have no individual conscience we know of, and thus are unaware of the conceptions of modern society... That doesn't give us rights to torture them, of course, yet that makes the human life more valuable in comparison.

Have you seen a man suffering? Acking from cold and hunger? Not being able to find enough food to feed his youth? There is no species in our world that suffers more than rejected humans.

However - humans aren't persecuted, methodically killed for food/skin/whatever by another species of animal.

While our highly-upgraded brain probably aggravates the measure of very indivudualized suffering, animals, at least those with a bi-lobed cortex (birds, mammals) do feel sorrow, anguish etc. The main difference is that since animals don't have speech, they constantly live in the present - sure, they can remember past occurences, when they encounter similar environment/stimuli again, but in general, they do not ponder about it. It is with the development of grammatically articulated speech that let humans escape from the constant present existence of the mind and, with that, develop what we understand with an individuality. BUT you shouldn't forget that it is almost a byproduct of our highly-developed brain, a quirk characteristic to our species and that from a scientific point of view the human genetic resources are in no way more valuable than those of another species, be it animal, plant, fungus or your nasty old common cold virus.

 

What I think needs to be done is to strike a balance between sustainable development of the human population and preserving the animal genetic resources. I don't think that humans should die off (I'd prefer feeding a child (not my own though, do not want children, ever) to a dog, though, because I can't escape the advantageous empathy towards members of my own species~) but I do think that some stricter reproductive limitations should be set. Even if with forceful measures.

Edited by lightbird

Share this post


Link to post

Depends on the situation. If I were to choose between saving a dronwing kid or a drowning animal, I would get the kid.

However, with donations, I would be more likely to contribute to animal causes.

Share this post


Link to post

While I agree with helping humans out who are in need, animals are in need, too. I can't say which is which. I mean, I'd hate to be the one to die in place of an animal, but at the same time we need them but they don't need us...

 

If I had $1000 to donate, I'd probably divide it in half--$500 for animals and $500 for people.

 

 

 

But people are overpopluated. We're killing the planet. I'm not saying that means we should let everybody die, but...

 

Well, too many people are having kids who really shouldn't be having kids, and not enough people want to adopt kids who are in less fortunate circumstances to help them out... If more people didn't have kids themselves but adopted kids in need to give them a better life, that would help with the population problem and the poverty problem.

 

I don't agree with ignoring humans in need over animals in need, but... Even if it makes me a horrible person, if faced with the choice between saving an endangered species or one village of humans, I'd pick the species--we can always easily repopulate the area with humans (assuming it wasn't suffering due to being in a very hostile place), but if we lose a species, that's it it's gone for good.

 

But I don't really think there's an easy choice here, and I think we should try to help both. Really, what needs to happen is there needs to be a happy balance found between protecting the species of Earth that need it, and helping out the humans in need...

Share this post


Link to post

Ohyeah- on a more individual case, I'd probably help a person rather than an animal. Human and a dog on a train track, train's coming, which to grab. I'd probably grab the human, if there's only time for one choice period.

....Overall, though, I'm sticking with animals > people.

Share this post


Link to post
Depends on the situation. If I were to choose between saving a dronwing kid or a drowning animal, I would get the kid.

What if the kid belonged to a mom who had 5 others and the animal was one of, like, 30 remaining of its species?

Share this post


Link to post

I would take 200 dollars.

 

150 go to the tigers, 50 go to humans.

 

The tigers are going extinct, the humans aren't. But perhaps I'm biased with tigers, as I consider cats higher then humans.

 

Normally its about 50/50. The humans suffer and we know, but the animals whole species will go extinct.

 

What if my ultimate to donate to is education. If people are better educated, they will come up with better ways to help the whole world, and get a better life themselves.

The population of tigers is too low, and the population of humans is too high. So yeah, I'd rather a bunch of humans died. If that had to be me, then fine. It's our own damn fault the population is too high anyway. It's not the tigers fault that we like hunting them into extinction.

 

I'll always donate to animal charities before human ones. Animal shelters that are full of dogs and cats waiting to be euthanized is completely our fault, and we need to own up to that and fix what we've done.

 

This as well. Lets face it, the more humans, the more chance to screw up. If it was just death, I would rather save animals. But if its starvation, or other kinds of suffering, I am more inclined to fix that. Better an animal euthanized painlessly, and I hate this as much as everyone else, than a human starving to death, or living in a slum for their whole life.

Share this post


Link to post

To be completely honest, I'd rather donate for humans before animals. Yeah, I might split up my money in half for donation, one for the animals, the other for humans, but...think of it like this. The animal can't exactly think "Oh, I'm suffering!" I mean, it knows something bad is happening, but they can't exactly think why. They can't exactly wonder why they have to go through that.

 

Homeless people are fully capable of wondering why people don't even bother donating money to them. Kids in Afghanistan/Iraq are fully capable of wondering why they can't have the fancy desks, papers and pencils we have for school.

 

I'd rather help my own species before I help animals. But that's just my opinion. I don't want to die. I personally think it's a terrible thing to say "Humans should die to make room for more animals!"

 

Sooo...you want me to die to make room for a mouse (figuratively speaking)? Yeah, I'd rather not :/ Yeah, people should stop building so many houses and buildings everywhere and stuff, maybe then there would be more room for animals. But I don't want to sit and let a family die just to make room for an animal when I could have helped them. I don't want animals to die, yeah, but I just...I hate the idea of people going hungry because people would rather donate to save an animal.

Share this post


Link to post

To be completely honest, I'd rather donate for humans before animals. Yeah, I might split up my money in half for donation, one for the animals, the other for humans, but...think of it like this. The animal can't exactly think "Oh, I'm suffering!" I mean, it knows something bad is happening, but they can't exactly think why. They can't exactly wonder why they have to go through that.

Does not knowing what exactly causes the suffering make it less real?

Same way you should say that you would rather donate for the sake of adults and not human infants who, by the way, also have no idea why they're going through something (brain development stage issues and all that jazz). :|

Edited by lightbird

Share this post


Link to post

The animal can't exactly think "Oh, I'm suffering!" I mean, it knows something bad is happening, but they can't exactly think why. They can't exactly wonder why they have to go through that.

I've seen the faces of animals that can make you think otherwise about that.

 

"Oh look. It doesn't know if it's suffering or not. Just kick it into a gutter, it won't know the difference." ಠwಠ

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.