Are humans more important than animals?

[crazywargod]

Sorry love. Nothing is that black and white. This isn't a perfect world and nothing boils down quite that easily. Your system for measuring which species is superior is flawed. If you want to see why, go have a chat with a gorilla. Tell him all about why you think your species is better because you have more tools, art forms, and a surperior language. He'll rip you in half without even thinking about it. Helpless isn't the word I'd chose.

They need our help because after that gorilla rips you in half, we'll come in with superior weapons (which I don't think makes us the superior species, just because we can kill things better and leave the bodies to rot) and wipe out not only that gorilla but every single one in the area. Then we'll whine about how they are endangered and we want them back. One of these days, we are going to go to far and not be able to bring them back. The animals will be gone and then we'll see how superior we think we are. Easy to be superior when you are completely alone.

You realise there are people stronger than gorillas right?

 

Yes it is that black and white.

[Eluin Gentry]

You realise there are people stronger than gorillas right?

 

Yes it is that black and white.

Are you one of them? Because if not, my statement stands. And you need to do something for me. You need to define "helplessness" as it relates to the wild animal world. I will give you that most domesticated animals are pretty helpless. We've bred a lot of their fears out of them, as well as their ability to survive on their own. Many people seem to believe that just because a house cat catches an occasional mouse, it is equipped to survive on its own if its owner tosses it out the back door and never looked back. A person is called a dog's Master for a reason. In that instance, we are superior. In both our world and in theirs. Dogs are pack animals. They expect the human to be the leader, to be dominant. They need that structure.

Wild animals don't need that from us. They don't need us to provide food for them. They don't need us to take care of them. What they need for us to do is to stop destorying their forests, polluting their water, and killing their food sources. They need us to find a balance with nature, not dominate it. The way we are going, we will destroy everything. Their world and ours. They are helpless to stop us because we have better weapons.

Humans are superior at killing. I still don't see how that is an asset. I have to wonder, if we had been a race that was more prone to study and live in harmony with, rather than kill and destroy everything that is different, how much further we really could have gone. The idea that there is nothing we can learn from the animals is holding us back.

 

- Whew. Ambien just kicked me in the pants. No more coherent thoughts tonight. Sorry if some bits of that last got a little wonky. I'll fix it when the screen stops moving.

[grimace]

You realise there are people stronger than gorillas right?

 

Yes it is that black and white.

You mean physically? No human is stronger than a healthy adult gorilla.

[crazywargod]

Are you one of them? Because if not, my statement stands. And you need to do something for me. You need to define "helplessness" as it relates to the wild animal world. I will give you that most domesticated animals are pretty helpless. We've bred a lot of their fears out of them, as well as their ability to survive on their own. Many people seem to believe that just because a house cat catches an occasional mouse, it is equipped to survive on its own if its owner tosses it out the back door and never looked back. A person is called a dog's Master for a reason. In that instance, we are superior. In both our world and in theirs. Dogs are pack animals. They expect the human to be the leader, to be dominant. They need that structure.

Wild animals don't need that from us. They don't need us to provide food for them. They don't need us to take care of them. What they need for us to do is to stop destorying their forests, polluting their water, and killing their food sources. They need us to find a balance with nature, not dominate it. The way we are going, we will destroy everything. Their world and ours. They are helpless to stop us because we have better weapons.

Humans are superior at killing. I still don't see how that is an asset. I have to wonder, if we had been a race that was more prone to study and live in harmony with, rather than kill and destroy everything that is different, how much further we really could have gone. The idea that there is nothing we can learn from the animals is holding us back.

 

- Whew. Ambien just kicked me in the pants. No more coherent thoughts tonight. Sorry if some bits of that last got a little wonky. I'll fix it when the screen stops moving.

So if I'm not stronger that judges the species as a whole? I think not. Also superiority comes not from brawn or knowledge alone but a balance which we humans, in general, have.

[lightbird]

So if I'm not stronger that judges the species as a whole? I think not. Also superiority comes not from brawn or knowledge alone but a balance which we humans, in general, have.

Your problem is that you're basically taking one criterion to determine whether one species is "stronger" than another - here, I'd say you're claiming that our ability to manipulate things makes us "stronger" and therefore worthier. That is like saying that some talents, like doing visual art, for example, are superior to making music. Which makes absolutely no sense, because life doesn't go like that.

 

/possibly bad wording, woke up 20 minutes ago

Edited November 19, 2010 by lightbird

[crazywargod]

Your problem is that you're basically taking one criterion to determine whether one species is "stronger" than another - here, I'd say you're claiming that our ability to manipulate things makes us "stronger" and therefore worthier. That is like saying that, for some talents, like doing visual art, for example, are superior to making music. Which makes absolutely no sense, because life doesn't go like that.

 

/possibly bad wording, woke up 20 minutes ago

I never said anything about worth. I said superior. Just because your superior then something doesn't make you worthier too.

 

It is our advances and achievements, our knowledge combined with our strength, that make us superior, but our bloodlust, greed, and total lack of respect for the world that makes us unworthy.

 

 

EDIT:When the human race is on the brink of extinction because animals are wiping us out then come to me and say we are not superior.

Edited November 19, 2010 by crazywargod

[MURDERcomplexx]

Wait....animals are wiping the human race out? When did this happen?

 

Also, I just want to state for the record that I do not think either is more superior than the other. Though my tendency to dislike humanity as a whole leads me to sympathize with the simpler lifestyle of animals more.

Edited November 19, 2010 by MURDERcomplexx

[lightbird]

EDIT:When the human race is on the brink of extinction because animals are wiping us out then come to me and say we are not superior.

Oh, now you're saying that the ability of methodically wiping another species out determines superiority. Still favouring one capability over the other.

As for the possibility of that, it's probably not going to happen, because so far evolution chooses for bigger brain to body ratio/opposable thumbs capable of crafting tools only in primates.

[MedievalMystic]

We might be more advanced than animals as far as technology goes, but we damn sure aren't smarter in common sense. We're the only animals that s**t in their own 'nest', we waste and destroy resources on a mass scale that we need to survive, something that the 'lesser' animals don't do. It seems like everything we touch, we foul. From what I've heard and read, in 40 years the ocean will be so pulluted that noone on the planet will be able to eat seafood. The concequences of that on people that rely on the ocean will be...oh, but wait...why worry about concequences, they aren't important. At least you wouldn't think so at the rate WE'RE spoiling every damn corner of the planet that we put our greedy, grubby hands on. >

 

 

I was watching something on discovery the other day about big shipping companies and the new way that they've figured out the shortest routes to any given destination, saving millions each year. It's a computer model they've developed based off of studies about how ANTS work. Same with some new idea for more ecomonic housing. They're basing these houses off of ant constuctions. There were also many other examples of how today's technology has been improved by studying how animals work. We need them...they damn sure don't need us, so why are we so superior? I don't see us as superior at all...I see us as the stupidest, dumbest things in existance, and our technology and brain power be damned. The 'smarter' we get, the more we find new and improved ways to destroy. Yippie. Yay us.

[Kai]

People need to realise the magnitude of humanity's achievements.

 

Of course there are cases where animals can be superior in their tightly selected niche. No one will run as fast as a big cat, and nobody has the sight of an eagle, and nobody can shoot lasers like the Enterprise.

 

But only the Enterprise has civilisation.

[caramba2654]

I want to die. I'm not only doing it because I want to live too. But if I died right here, right now, I wouldn't care...

 

So I would donate to animals, since humans are the ones who are really destroying the planet.

[crazywargod]

Oh, now you're saying that the ability of methodically wiping another species out determines superiority. Still favouring one capability over the other.

As for the possibility of that, it's probably not going to happen, because so far evolution chooses for bigger brain to body ratio/opposable thumbs capable of crafting tools only in primates.

If animals were so much more superior then humans they would have us in cages, have us as pets, killing us as sport, methodical wiping us out. It wouldn't be the other way round.

 

 

If you look at individual characteristics humans are beat in quite a bit of things. As a whole though humans are superior.

 

 

Now this does not mean we are better then animals because in all honesty we are just animals ourselves.

 

 

Pull whatever meaning from that you please. I'm out.

[AngelKitty]

If animals were so much more superior then humans they would have us in cages, have us as pets, killing us as sport, methodical wiping us out. It wouldn't be the other way round.

 

The ability to control and destroy is not superiority. The sooner the world realizes this the better off we'll all be. Strength does not automatically grant superiority.

 

Let's remove animals from the equation and look just at humans. Are sighted body builders superior to blind people? Think carefully before you answer, because by the logic above, the fact that the sighted body builders would have an easier time controlling and destroying the blind than the other way around makes them superior.

[LightningRip]

Since when are animals wiping humans out? Have you noticed that countless numbers of animals are or are on the brink of extinction because of humans? We have to pen our eyes and see the world around us. If you think animal's are useless-look again. Animals balance out the world. Plants depend on animals for the nutrients and nourishment they leave when they pass. Animals need plants to survive, be it by eating them or eating what eats them. Humans need both.

 

@AngelKitty's question: No, the bodybuilder is not superior. It is not strength, or sight, or power that makes us superior-it is the things we live by and the principles that we make our decisions by.

Edited November 19, 2010 by LightningRip

[crazywargod]

Since when are animals wiping humans out? Have you noticed that countless numbers of animals are or are on the brink of extinction because of humans? We have to pen our eyes and see the world around us. If you think animal's are useless-look again. Animals balance out the world. Plants depend on animals for the nutrients and nourishment they leave when they pass. Animals need plants to survive, be it by eating them or eating what eats them. Humans need both.

 

@AngelKitty's question: No, the bodybuilder is not superior. It is not strength, or sight, or power that makes us superior-it is the things we live by and the principles that we make our decisions by.

Seriously. I did not say animals are wiping us out right now. Read it again. Note the WHEN starting the sentence.

 

 

 

The definitions of superior disagrees with you AngelKitty. To summarise they all say the one on top, the leader, big dog, ruler, ext... We humans have muscled our way into this position. With all our strength AND knowledge we are superior to animals.

 

It all boils down to who is wiping out who.

 

If you want to go morality then humans are on the bottom on that list. I have said this before.

[RheaZen]

The definitions of superior disagrees with you AngelKitty. To summarise they all say the one on top, the leader, big dog, ruler, ext... We humans have muscled our way into this position. With all our strength AND knowledge we are superior to animals.

What about morals and ethics?

[LightningRip]

Actually the first definition is this:

 

superior |səˈpi(ə)rēər|

adjective

1 higher in rank, status, or quality : a superior officer | it is superior to every other car on the road.

• of high standard or quality : superior malt whiskeys.

• greater in size or power : deploying superior force.

• [ predic. ] ( superior to) above yielding to or being influenced by : I felt superior to any accusation of anti-Semitism.

• having or showing an overly high opinion of oneself; supercilious : that girl was frightfully superior.

------

 

Hint the use of quality. Morales, ethics, and principles are qualities each and everyone has-however many or of what kind depends on the person.

Edited November 19, 2010 by LightningRip

[BoneScar]

I would send my money to animals. They need more help than us humans, concidering there are 89 billion humans and only 300 of some species i think our help should go strait to them.

[crazywargod]

Actually the first definition is this:

 

superior |s??pi(?)r??r|

adjective

1 higher in rank, status, or quality : a superior officer | it is superior to every other car on the road.

• of high standard or quality : superior malt whiskeys.

• greater in size or power : deploying superior force.

• [ predic. ] ( superior to) above yielding to or being influenced by : I felt superior to any accusation of anti-Semitism.

• having or showing an overly high opinion of oneself; supercilious : that girl was frightfully superior.

------

 

Hint the use of quality. Morales, ethics, and principles are qualities each and everyone has-however many or of what kind depends on the person.

Let me point out that says nothing about morals and ethics. That talks about athority.

 

 

 

Rhea read the full post.

[RheaZen]

Let me point out that says nothing about morals and ethics. That talks about athority.

 

 

 

Rhea read the full post.

Humans may not be great, but if we're so "superior," said superiority should encompass not just stuff like power, ability to destroy, etc. but also quality, ex. stuff like how ethical we are.

 

Although having read most of this argument I don't even see why I'm bothering to post.

[crazywargod]

Humans may not be great, but if we're so "superior," said superiority should encompass not just stuff like power, ability to destroy, etc. but also quality, ex. stuff like how ethical we are.

 

Although having read most of this argument I don't even see why I'm bothering to post.

It should, but as a race "we must be superior any means possible" even if morality goes right out the window. Look at hitler for a prime example.

 

 

Let me also point out planet of the apes. Humans weren't so superior there.

[RheaZen]

It should, but as a race "we must be superior any means possible" even if morality goes right out the window. Look at hitler for a prime example.

 

 

Let me also point out planet of the apes. Humans weren't so superior there.

Godwin's law? Really?

 

I've never watched that.

[MedievalMystic]

Without all of our high tech gadgets, we're at the bottom of the food chain. Go stand in the african outback with nothing more than your brain power. Who's superior now?

[crazywargod]

Godwin's law? Really?

 

I've never watched that.

Awhat is that? Never heard of it.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film)

 

 

@MedievalMystic: Sure but we do have the technology. You can't just say if we didn't we wouldn't so we aren't. We do have it so we are.

Edited November 19, 2010 by crazywargod

[RheaZen]

Awhat is that? Never heard of it.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film)

Bringing up Hitler/Nazis in a conversation, basically.

 

Can you just sum up whatever point you had in mentioning the movie, rather than having me read through the whole page?