Are humans more important than animals?

[Husky51]

The only importance that animals have in my life is for the benefit and sustenance of mankind.  Either for food or the testing for the treatment of diseases or as pets...

 

Do I care whether a chicken is kept in a cage for the most economical production?  Not a bit...  A chicken is there for eggs and meat, as a cow is for milk and/or meat.  Other than that, I only wish that they are kept healthy.  I know that many people will disagree with me, but that is their right...

[Fuzzbucket]

It is indeed my right and I do disagree. Animals are not thoughtlessly - and knowingly - destroying the planet. We will die out, the way we are behaving - and we deserve to.

 

I think I posted this before once - David Attenborough was interviewed on the radio a few years ago, on the degradation of the environment etc, and towards the end, he was asked "so we'll be OK then, in the end ?" There was a sort of shocked silence and then Attenborough said "Humans ? I thought you meant the planet. The human race hasn't a prayer in hell."

 

I can't find that now, but he still campaigns, though is a little less pessimistic about the human race now. Others agree:

 

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/humanity-survive-c21/

[SkyWolf25]

Agree with Fuzz. 

 

　Animals were not made for our use, nor are they intrinsically of lower value or status than us. Humans only have this much control over other species and the environment(with mostly negative effects) as we have now because we happened to develop high levels of intelligence during the course of evolution. Due to evolution, we have superior intelligence, elephants have superior strength, cheetahs have superior speed, and the list goes on and on. Superior intelligence is not a trait that makes us a superior life form in every aspect. We just like to think it is because humans in general like being superior to others, and because it makes things so much easier when we are handling animal/environment related matters. Paving a road through this mountain will drive endangered lizard species to near extinction? Who cares, human convenience is much more important. My dog no longer looks cute and small so I'm going to throw it away, maybe someone will pick it up and it will be completely fine. Animals can feel pain so we shouldn't mass-farm them in a crowded cage and leave them bleeding? Oh, but I'm sure they process the pain differently so it doesn't really matter. These kinds of things stem from the same sentiment.

 

The Philosopher and the Wolf is a good read related to this topic regarding evolution and superiority.

[Rainbeetle]

I'm in the middle. I would like to keep an even balance of which I help, humans and animals.

 

I agree with what many have said on the side of animals. They are not what is destroying our planet, and they were definitely not created and born simply for our use. Animals are innocent collateral damage of us humans. When I see people think so lowly of animals, that humans are worth so much more, simply because we are the more "intelligent species", I think of human arrogance. We are arrogant to believe we are better than all of the other creatures on earth, because of our intelligence. But really, just how intelligent are we? We put toxins and poison into our body willingly and happily,  often to have a "good time". But these poisons can kill us if we aren't careful enough. And the interesting thing? Animals are too intelligent to do something like that. Their instincts stop them immediately from ingesting something they know to be toxic. Humans have the opportunity to learn this by communication before even doing it once... And yet somehow we are still unintelligent enough to do it anyways. We have practically killed our instincts, but what we gained was the power to make choices. Don't be arrogant just because you have that power... using it unwisely is a waste of that gift. 

 

Now on the flip side, humans. Do humans deserve help? Are we worth anything?

In the grand scheme of things, no. But then, neither are animals in that sense. 

But consider human babies. They are basically useless. They can't stand, walk, talk, or do anything by themselves. Does that make them worthless then, because if we are so overpopulated we don't need more babies? 

 

No, I don't think so. Humans deserve kindness too, even the adults. We are animals. Yes, overpopulated animals, but that doesn't mean innocent people don't deserve help. People say that it is humans fault for all the animals in shelters. It's also humans fault that other humans are in shelters. Not all, but most. Animals are not beneath us because we can make the choice of whether to destroy them or not. People have done that to other people for centuries, and none is better than the other. We may cultivate them for our needs, but even then they deserve respect as fellow creatures on the earth.

 

Truly, this is opinion of moral. It really comes down to which people feel is worth more. Personally, I would give my money to a charity for animals just as much as I would for a charity that helps shelter people in abusive homes. To me, both are worth my effort, and if I have the means to help, they both deserve the same kindness.

[Alrexwolf]

My weird opinion is that we're all alive, and can experience pain. Even trees and other plants respond to pain - though not in the same way we might.

 

Any pain is not more or less important than any other. Pain is all equal.

 

People who say that one human's life is equal to every animal on the planet aren't people I agree with. Every life is equal and everything is a balance. We are no more or less important than any animal, any plant, and vice versa.

[Fuzzbucket]

I'm not talking about what charities we support. As it happens my main ones are basically people ones - SOS Villages, WaterAid and Centrepoint.

 

It's the idea that we are "worth more" than animals (hell, we ARE animals !) and are more important than a cat, a cow, or a bee. We are not. Every individual bee is worth as much as every individual human.

[Confused Cat]

In general, for the world / nature / the universe, humans are as important (or unimportant) as anything else. Chickens, ants, bacteria.

 

For me, being a human, it's different.

If a wasp is going to accidentally kill a human in 10 seconds unless I kill the wasp, I will kill it.

If the human is going to accidentally kill the wasp unless I kill the human, I will not kill the human.

(Of course in both situations it would be preferable if nobody died, but I'm thinking about a hypothetical situation in which that's simply not an option.)

So apparently, yes, I consider humans more important than (other) animals.

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

A bit of perspective here - what if you saw a human about to kill another human ?

 

Or more to the point, a human about to kill a lion for no good reason (as in nasty tourist hunters.) I MIGHT actually kill that human. The difference is that I would probably go to jail for it. Otherwise I would do it like a SHOT. If I knew I were dying I would CERTAINLY do it. I would happily bump off every tourist hunter out there. I don't believe in the death penalty for murder, for many reasons (not least the fact that there are disturbingly often wrong convictions, but also that as a general rule, murder is not a lifestyle in the way that hunting for trophies is.

 

I know that makes me a bad person. That's OK  

 

And I actually believe some animals will protect those of a different species.

[Ether-Equinox]

Animals are far more important than Humans.

 

Humans are vile, cruel, sinful demons. They take anything they want, they destroy anything they can, and take away lives of other humans and animals just because they can.

The world is dying and Humans are 1000% the cause of it all.

If humans never existed and will never exist, the world would be greener.

[Harebelle]

We are animals and evolved alongside them, so I don't think it makes any sense to assume other mammals are mindless or don't feel.
 

Obviously, I would value a human life over an animal's life if I had to choose, but I don't think animals are for us to use or mistreat, including as food in developed nations where other options are available.

I think the "might makes right" attitude of using and harming animals because we can is very problematic. If someone believes that, then following their own logic: why would it be wrong to use a weaker or less intelligent person as a slave or for a more intelligent species to shoot humans for sport?

Edited October 20, 2018 by Harebelle
expanded on some wording

[Laryal]

Well lets see humans are  more important than animals but i would not miss treat one but i do eat meat.Do not get me wrong they should not miss treat the ones we eat either  but Human life if we did not take animal's lives they would over populate as well then they would be hurting too.Take a look at Yellow Stone an how they took the wolves out the animals suffered couse there was hardily no more grass an then they got sick.An once they brought back the wolvies everything went back to normal hope you understand what i mean. So i guess what i mean is all life is valubable but humans more so.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowstone

Edited October 22, 2018 by Laryal

[The Dragoness]

I love animals, but I also eat meat. However, I don't think that animals (including livestock raised for slaughter) should be mistreated in order for companies to thrive financially. They, like all living things, should be allowed at least the basic necessities of life and a humane death if they are livestock raised for slaughter. Animals are also *very* important when it comes to testing medicine in labs. I don't like the idea of a rat being poisoned by a poor product, but I feel that it would be worse if it were someone's family member. Or worse, many people. This might sound cold, but at least said rat doesn't have a family waiting for them at home. Their work is appreciated and, if they do die or suffer injury, it's for a good cause. Maybe that rat could even allow scientists to release a cure for cancer. 

 

So I guess I feel that humans are more important than other animals in some situations, but I don't think we should take them for granted. Animals are living, breathing creatures as well that deserve to be on this planet just as much as we do. They should be respected. It's unfortunate that some people ignore that and will hunt them into extinction for profit off of their remains or destroy their habitats to build new cities. There needs to be some sort of balance. I think that hunting in terms of maintaining a population or feeding people (again, with respect to the population's health) can be a good thing, but hunting purely for sport or money is something else entirely. We need to consider more than just ourselves. 

Edited January 13, 2019 by The Dragoness

[DragonKami]

This is an interesting topic, one with multiple objective and subjective answers. Let's try to look at it from a few differing perspectives.

 

We'll get to that in a bit, but first to address the initial post:

 

The reason the girl in question reacted in such a way was not solely due to your contrary ideology, but your delivery. It more than likely seemed to her that you- apparently having a history of disliking her- were only trying to take away from something she was excited for. This very well may have bolstered what would have been a slight annoyance into an outrage. By her logic, preserving humans is less of a priority due to their abundance on Earth. This is an understandable perspective.

 

Now, to answer the question at hand:

 

To argue whether or not animals should be held above humans is a philosophical question which precedes any basic survival based forms of thought. This prompts me to look at this through a philosophical lens firstly.

 

What brings value to a life? Whether that life be Animal or Human? The amount of change brought to the world? The experiences one feels? Pain, Love, Hatred, Joy? Humans are far more conscious than any other living earth creature, we experience pain to greater degrees than many, and have manipulated the world in extraordinary ways. A single human may save thousands of lives- human and animal. Our lives are far more diverse, and we travel this world to a degree which animals will never achieve- mentally and physically. We enrich the lives of animals which we call our own. Human lives hold far more weight than an animal's life might.

 

Or is there something else? Perhaps humans have hoarded this world for far too long. Perhaps they have grown greedy, and are no longer fit to rule over this world. Perhaps one should not be held above the rest.

 

I'll leave this open for you to conclude subjectively yourself.

 

Let's look at this from a natural perspective.

 

It should be said that Humans are animals. We are from the same, and operate along the same rules as the rest. To handicap ourselves would only point towards our arrogance. Naturally, Humans have every right to play God and eradicate what they so choose. We have fought tooth and nail to rule this world as we do. Technology, Cloning, Genetic Code Editing. These may seem to be the furthest human creations from nature, yet they fit within Nature's rules well. Technology is but tools we have created from nature. It is the same as a Rock which a Monkey may use to crack open a nut. A tool to reach a means. Humans are Nature's perfect creation. We rule this world because we were selected to do so. The weak die, leaving the strong to pass their genes. Every natural animal is perfectly fit to exist as it does. This is natural selection. We are not above other animals. To put them above ourselves is to put them beneath us. There's a standard which must be followed if you truly respect nature, otherwise, you become the very thing you detest. You play God. But of course, you have every right to do so.

 

I won't delve into any other mind-sets at this time, as I am far too lazy to do so. However I will lightly touch upon something here.

 

Humans are animals. To separate them causes issues. Regardless, for the survival of Humans and the Earth's Ecosystem of a whole, Animals may be considered more important. This isn't truly an even match, but I digress.

 

PS: Hello everyone, it's been years! I don't plan to come back in full swing, but expect to see me give my two-cents from time to time.

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Humans and animals are part of the same ecosystem,. Neither is more important than the other. That said, we abuse animals all the time, and we overbreed. (Not only that, but unlike animals, we KNOW we are doing so and we don't care.)  I would like to see things happen as they do with rabbits and lemmings. When overpopulation becomes an issue, there are mass deaths - disease or the running over a cliff thing. That should happen to humans as well - but because we find ways  to circumvent it, we are ruining the balance of nature. I well remember a serious naturalist on the radio, talking about the future of the planet, and he was kind of optimistic. So the interviewer said, in the end, "so mankind will be OK." The naturalist was flabbergasted. "Humans ? I thought you meant the planet. The human race hasn't a prayer in hell;." Quite And it will be our own fault.

 

Mother nature will see to it that we get our just deserts. The extreme weather we are seeing is just the beginning.

 

To the OP though - I agree with DragonKami. The way you said it, I would have been outraged too. Her view is as valid as yours. And sure, humans are suffering - but we - as a race - have brought it upon ourselves. Even those starving on the streets are there because of the governments that we elected, who are only interested in money. I do buy food for many of those I see,  and to food banks - but I give my money to global charities rather than to human ones. The planet is more important than any one species, and especially more important than the greediest most abusive species on it.

[Dragon_Arbock]

Humans are animals. Eukaryotic, motile, multicellular organisms no different from most any other mammal. Really should be asking if we're better than any other life at all.

 

But as for what I think, I have no respect for the people who kill things just because they can. We needlessly kill, abuse, and destroy. And we do overbreed. Having more than two kids is just outright irresponsible. Can we survive? For now. We can keep going on as we're going, and step on millions of other species so they die before us, but after we've done that, and ruined everything, then we will also die.

 

We only have one earth. There's nowhere else for us to go, so maybe we should think about that before we keep doing what we're doing.

[KrazyKarp]

Humans are animals. There's no species that is more important than another; in the eyes of nature, we're all the same, and seeing as we all are at the mercy of nature, it's only fitting to mention it. Regardless of what we find important we're going to go extinct someday anyway. It's how life works. We do have some control over how long we can go for until extinction, and we are in a unique position where we can actually help all other animals on the planet to survive much longer. Unfortunately we just care too much about silly things like politics and fighting among each other to even care for each other and other species. If everyone worked toward the magnificent goal of conserving life on the planet for as long as possible - both human and non-human life - only then I believe we'd reach our greatest point as a species. But we've sorta made a statement to nature that says "We'd sooner go extinct than help conserve life!" and, well, we'll pay the proper price for that someday.

 

Of course, I highly doubt life will disappear anyway. There's some insanely hardy microorganisms out there. I just think helping the incredibly diverse life of this world continue to survive for as long as possible is the best thing anyone could ever do.

[DragonKami]

21 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Humans and animals are part of the same ecosystem,. Neither is more important than the other. That said, we abuse animals all the time, and we overbreed. (Not only that, but unlike animals, we KNOW we are doing so and we don't care.)

I agree. Animals and Humans both abide by nature's rules. That said, often the reality of nature is made out to be generic and is fantasized. Being chained by terms which we forged ourselves, unable to morph. We assume nature consists of materials and ecology in a basic state, yet this is far from the case. Cruelty, pain, violence, domination, death, destruction. These are all facets of nature itself. To pick the appealing aspects of nature out for ourselves is akin to a child picking the marshmallows from his cereal. You may do so, but you only starve yourself from the necessary nutrients to survive. Humans are fulfilling nature itself. If we were to mass exterminate a species to expand our territory, we would be operating as model denizens of nature. Nature is not a kind mother with cruel methods, nature is an idea. I believe intertwining our humanity with this idea has caused us to lose sight of what it truly is. We call it Mother-Nature. This in itself shows how arrogant we truly are. 

 

We are microscopic organisms inhabiting a grain of sand in an endless desert. If our existence were to cease, the flow of nature, time, and existence itself would not stop. We do not matter, nor do any animals. Any sense of meaning is an instinct programmed deep within us. With this in mind, it is only natural for us to behave the way we do. Whether it be the moral hunting for survival, torture, protesting the torture, or writing about it on a Forum.

 

I do want to briefly touch up upon:

 

Dolphins are well aware of what they do. They exhibit socio-sexual behavior towards defenseless humans, attempt rape, and bite fish heads off for masturbation rather than for consumption. They also do not care.

 

This does little to disprove your argument, nor does it add much to mine, but I found it interesting.

 

I do want to briefly touch up upon:

 

Many behaviors humans exhibit are due to the fact that we do not function as one whole. This discussion may make it seem to be the case- as we are looking at a greater picture- but allow me to put it bluntly. Humans over-breed because Jeff personally: Doesn't give a  about your lives. He may dawdle with the idea, but in the end, his needs come far before any of ours. This is natural. Humans function together, but only for our individual needs and wants. Jeff buys fish from the market, not to complete the cycle of the economy, not to keep the fish market alive, not to support the fishers, but to feed his family. The others benefit from his personal desire, but are not the focus.

21 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I would like to see things happen as they do with rabbits and lemmings. When overpopulation becomes an issue, there are mass deaths - disease or the running over a cliff thing. That should happen to humans as well - but because we find ways  to circumvent it, we are ruining the balance of nature

Finding ways to circumvent this process is within nature's guidelines. If it were not, it wouldn't be possible. Many restrict nature to this one speck of dust we live on. Look at it this way:

You may find it is completely natural for humans to migrate from Africa to other areas- as they once did. If you open your mind to larger prospects, you'll find that humans prolonging their existence and moving to another planet is exactly the same. We are well within nature's balance, so long as you understand nature's restrictions- or rather the lack thereof.

 

I do want to briefly touch up upon:

 

I do not believe humans will last forever. In terms of the Universe's scale, we have existed within mere seconds and can cease to in the same amount of time.

 

I'd like to add: Hah, falling off cliffs. I guess the human equivalent would be warring ourselves to death,

 

21 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Mother nature will see to it that we get our just deserts. The extreme weather we are seeing is just the beginning.

We do not deserve any punishment for our actions, as these are actions which have been instigated by nature itself. Extreme weather is less a facet of nature than what survives it. Therein lies nature's true... Nature. Many seem to count natural phenomena as nature in it's entirety, where nature is more so an equilibrium which test, perfects, and begs for its subjects to cheat.

 

I do want to briefly touch up upon:

 

If we were to consider nature as an entity- a mother- as many do, I believe she would be proud. Proud, yet constantly pushing us to become more powerful beings through cruel and fair means. "Oh you can manipulate the weather, generate food sources, and select which genes your children will have?" "Fair enough, let's see how you fair against a disease which targets those specific genes you tampered with. Usually this disease wouldn't get too far, but since you all are so similar, it'll run rampant. (Similar to the potato disaster) Get past this and you'll be tougher than before, let's see what you can do." This sentiment would be held for all creatures.

 

I want to elude to:

 

A massive point we have not touched on and I will not touch too deeply on at the moment, is that nature extends far beyond what we've discussed. There are many types of evolution. Societal evolution, Technological Evolution, Evolution of the ecosystem in relation to humans. Everything evolves. Everything. This is all very interesting, I await for further replies, so I can dig into this more. Trust me, it gets good.

 

A sneak-peak:

 

Recent Politics, Social Media Behavior and Pseudo-Societies, and war all fit within some type of evolution. Thus making these things natural.

 

PS: This means Nuking Each Other Would Be Natural As Well.

 

I would like to add that this is nothing but an exchange of ideas. Any possible offense should be cast aside, as I don't mean to do so. Maybe it's just me, but directly quoting someone and picking their message apart feels personal. If you share this feeling, I assure you I have no ill will.

[Fuzzbucket]

Oh go for it. I disagree, though - I think humanity is WAY past natural behaviour. 

[DragonKami]

I'm all out of writing energy. If I tried to go any further, I would devolve into writing: "XD ur wrong so just accept it take the LLLL" Lol

I'll surely get back to you all when the opportunity presents itself.

 

Though- if you feel like doing so- care to elaborate further as to why you disagree?

[Fuzzbucket]

While we have evolved naturally, we have also deliberately manipulated our evolution at the expense of other species in ways which no other species has. And we abuse other species on a scale that no other species has. And the level of technology we have developed is not"nature" as such.

 

Mind you, now I am gently annoyed. You said: 

 

Quote

I would like to add that this is nothing but an exchange of ideas. Any possible offense should be cast aside, as I don't mean to do so. 

 

and now you say: 

 

Quote

If I tried to go any further, I would devolve into writing: "XD ur wrong so just accept it take the LLLL" Lol

 

As you say - this is a discussion. Opinions aren't right or wrong. I have syence nolledge too, tha knows

[DragonKami]

Alright fair enough. I can agree to disagree.

 

I didn't mean to offend or annoy, I was trying to be funny, ha-ha.

That's my fault, as this a place for Discussion, not jokes.

I have no intention to try and "win" this discussion. As I said, we were only exchanging ideas.

[Fuzzbucket]

39 minutes ago, DragonKami said:

Alright fair enough. I can agree to disagree.

 

I didn't mean to offend or annoy, I was trying to be funny, ha-ha.

That's my fault, as this a place for Discussion, not jokes.

I have no intention to try and "win" this discussion. As I said, we were only exchanging ideas.

 

No worries - so was I   NEVER say "exchange of ideas" followed by "You are wrong". Red rag to a bull. kinda !!! (Because of a few other threads here, far more contentious than this one !) Peace and that. 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[DragonKami]

On 1/13/2015 at 2:36 PM, DragonKami said:

Well now it is... It has been made that way by us. Because if humans disappeared suddenly and were replaced with some other species similar to humans to fill in the food chain, the world would end. Many unmanned nuclear power plants would go off, dead mans rockets would fire all over the world, many cars and trucks carrying gasoline and acid or dangerous things would crash. Planes would crash, oil refinerys would lose thier oil into sea eventually. But we made it that way so it is our job to maintain the world itself.

 

Also don't judge me I didn't read the other comments...

 

HAH-HAH, this was my stance on the topic exactly four years ago. How our minds diverge and evolve over short periods of time will never cease to amaze me. This entire site is a museum of my mindset and personality which otherwise would not have been recorded. This is why I am back here. I'm sure I innocently expressed some horrendously offensive thoughts I toyed with at some point. Looking back through my post history will be a trip.

[Fuzzbucket]

We are barely part of the food chain these days. We don't allow other animals to eat us so you'd notice,. We wouldn't be missed. But it wouldn't be that sudden. There'd be time for all those nuclear plants to decommission themselves by running out of fuel while we struggled to survive in what was becoming a non-human planet. Being us we would take over every drop of gasoline and oil and use it. Then we'd have run out, so there'd be no planes in the sky.

 

And so on

 

But YES - we caused most of what's wrong, so we have a responsibility to repair what we can. If we don't, we will cause our own extinction.

[sarrepta1]

Questions regarding importance are inherently flawed because they rely on gauging an unobjectifiable concept that was created from a human perspective. It's fundamentally impossible to truly know the perspective of other animals since we only have experience as humans (at least I hope we all do). Even though we see that other species seem to prefer their own kind, we can't say with certainty that they do so because they consciously think themselves to be more important. For example, we can say that lions seem to focus on their own kind since they hunt for their prides and offspring while they brutalize and kill other species without hesitation. We can guess that they inherently see themselves as more important, or they are incapable of seeing other species as anything but pieces of meat. Maybe it's just something we can't understand since they only have experience with lions, and we only have experience as humans.

 

Because of our limits, as far as we know, "importance" is a concept created by us. It doesn't exist beyond our biased understanding of it. Reality doesn't revolve around humanity's ideals or the English language. The question of this thread is fundamentally flawed. Since importance is such a subjective word, we can twist it however we want to create our own criteria for judging it. Since we're talking about nature, it's important to remember that nature is not a "mother", an ideal state of being, or a statue of purity-these are all things we humans have come up with to define it. Nature does not uphold standards of traditionalism, righteousness, or importance. It is not a personality, it simply is.

 

As others in this thread have stated, humans are animals. We are not that different from them. There is no such thing as a species that is more evolved/advanced than others; evolution does not have a goal. Humans have evolved in different conditions. Humans do not own the planet. Most species that have ever existed are already extinct, and humans have a relatively small role in this. Humans are not powerful and wise enough to control the planet or destroy it. We aren't that influential. It simply changes. All species will be killed of whether humans get involved or not. Even then, new life will probably take over anyways. We aren't getting out of the natural balance. Such a balance is another romantic ideal created by humans. Animals that change the environment to benefit their own kinds (as well as some others) are pretty much standard.

 

tldr: the question of which is more important is a misunderstanding of nature