Are humans more important than animals?

[ShinyTomato]

But that cannot go without saying, when one species died, so did another, and another, etc. It still takes a heavy toll on the Earth, and while it may not be permanent, we wouldn't live long enough to see the recovery.

 

Not necessarily accurate, though. I mean, what's wrong with trying to make polio or smallpox or malaria extinct?

[FireAngel73]

 

.

Edited January 4, 2019 by FireAngel73

[Greywake]

Frankly, humans are crap. No matter how innocent we look when we're young, we always end up as hypocritical, grudge-holding, selectively calloused biggots. And its only when we spoil-rotten or abuse our animals that they end up just like us. Wild animals? They don't give a crap. They do what they need to survive, and worry about their petty wants if there's time left over. You hear of wild animals randomly attacking people? It's always because it's diseased or the nimrod human got too close for comfort. And yet its always the animal that gets killed for the human's stupidity. "Oh gee, I didn't know it would BITE me if I kicked it's babies, let's euthanize it!" They should make it legal to go around hunting people. So that we can be killed for sport and our murderers go unpunished, hell, rewarded for mounting our heads on the walls and orphaning our children. Or not? Why? Because we're sick, twisted hypocrites. So it's okay to do slaughter the living crap out of them, but the moment one of them so much as steps on our lawn it needs to be executed for being a "rogue" animal.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Greywake

[potterwolf]

Human beings are more important in a personal sense. As much as I love animals and as much as I wish tigers weren't in danger, people are suffering. I think it's natural for people to look out for other people before we look out for another species, but it's more than that.

 

I don't buy the argument that we should help endangered animals because it's humanity's fault that they're in danger, and we shouldn't help suffering humans because we caused the suffering ourselves. That just doesn't make any sense.

 

It isn't a starving child's fault that human society has caused or influenced that child's suffering. Just because the our flawed society caused the child to be left out, doesn't mean that we shouldn't favor the child's life over a tiger's life.

 

Can you honestly say that if you had the resources to rescue only one fellow creature from a life of suffering, you'd choose a tiger over a human being. I'm sorry, but that's a little bit sick.

[Daydreamer09]

Frankly, humans are . No matter how innocent we look when we're young, we always end up as hypocritical, grudge-holding, selectively calloused biggots. And its only when we spoil-rotten or abuse our animals that they end up just like us. Wild animals? They don't give a . They do what they need to survive, and worry about their petty wants if there's time left over. You hear of wild animals randomly attacking people? It's always because it's diseased or the dipshit human got too close for comfort. And yet its always the animal that gets killed for the human's stupidity. "Oh gee, I didn't know it would BITE me if I kicked it's babies, let's euthanize it!" They should make it legal to go around hunting people. So that we can be killed for sport and our murderers go unpunished, hell, rewarded for mounting our heads on the walls and orphaning our children. Or not? Why? Because we're sick, twisted hypocrites. So it's okay to do slaughter the living crap out of them, but the moment one of them so much as steps on our lawn it needs to be executed for being a "rogue" animal.

Before you get too far out there, I should let you know that you just insulted every single person out there reading this. How can you honestly say that, reading through this thread, after SO MANY individuals have blatantly stated that they deeply care about animals and how we impact them? How can you THINK that about the human race?

[Lila]

Not necessarily accurate, though. I mean, what's wrong with trying to make polio or smallpox or malaria extinct?

It completely depends on the extent we take it to. If we eradicate it, what will keep our population in check? The fact that humans are more developed brain-wise, yes, is great, but does it not also hinder us? If animals get sick in the wild, they fight through it, and if they die, they give up. Big deal. If a human gets sick, and dies even with medical treatment, why is it so much worse? I mean I can understand if you were close to that person, of course you'll feel much worse than if a wild animal were to die.

 

But the fact that humans have gone to such great extents to eradicate diseases is actually, if you looked at it from my point of view, a bit foolish. Not bad, but it only benefits us for a short time before BOOM goes the population because we have no natural predator. We are only killed by disease and weather and each other. So sure, have as many children as you'd like, but we need to have a limited amount of disease dealt out occasionally. Which sounds absolutely terrible, I know, but if deer have population limitations or whatever they're called, so should humans.

 

Just so you know I'm not a serial killer.

[Princess Artemis]

Not bad, but it only benefits us for a short time before BOOM goes the population because we have no natural predator.

Reading this thread, it sounds like we are our own natural predator.

[Lila]

Reading this thread, it sounds like we are our own natural predator.

Not a very successful predator.

[TPishek]

There in lies the problem, sadly..., the poverty of the local people is often a HUGE obstacle to any kind of conservation efforts... people may turn to poaching endagered species to feed their families and whatnot... truth is its actually very complicated, seems to me.

This exactly. :3 By helping people, you help animals. By helping animals, you help people. We cannot escape how inextricably our lives are intertwined.

 

That's why my personal favorite charity is Heifer International.

Edited June 28, 2011 by TPishek

[Daydreamer09]

This exactly. :3 By helping people, you help animals. By helping animals, you help people. We cannot escape how inextricably our lives are intertwined.

That is a wonderful way of putting it.

[WestWindReborn]

humans, bleagh...

 

humans are capable of helping themselves or asking for help. Animals don't have that privilege, most especially when it usually the humans that are bulldozing them. the whole reason we have an endangered species list is because WE put them there. which is why when ever i see cases of animal abuse i always feel like breaking a few fingers.

[7Deadly$ins]

humans, bleagh...

 

humans are capable of helping themselves or asking for help. Animals don't have that privilege, most especially when it usually the humans that are bulldozing them. the whole reason we have an endangered species list is because WE put them there. which is why when ever i see cases of animal abuse i always feel like breaking a few fingers.

There were endangered and extinct animals long before humans were around. And sure humans can ask for help, but that doesn't mean they'll get it.

[Yowl]

Before you get too far out there, I should let you know that you just insulted every single person out there reading this. How can you honestly say that, reading through this thread, after SO MANY individuals have blatantly stated that they deeply care about animals and how we impact them? How can you THINK that about the human race?

This.

 

I'm offended by you assuming that I am an, as you put it "hypocritical, grudge-holding, selectively calloused biggot" I'm not. And not everyone is. Everyone is different and for every bad person there is out there, there is another trying to do good.

 

ALSO

 

It's one thing to say 'oh I'd definitely help animals before humans, they can't help themselves' but it's a whole other ballpark to de-value human life :\ Just sayin'

Edited June 29, 2011 by Yowl

[Kalista]

I'm much more concerned about all the animals dying off because of human's unlimited expansion. We're driving the earth and everything else living here into the ground, and unless changes are made, our civilization's done for. And think of it this way - if we were living correctly, in balance with our environment and everything around us, we wouldn't have to worry about people starving, because there wouldn't be gross human overpopulation. The only thing caused by saving the people that are starving is creating an even greater population increase. Anyone else ever read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? That man knows what he's talking about.

 

~Kalista

Edited June 29, 2011 by Kalista

[Princess Artemis]

And think of it this way - if we were living correctly, in balance with our environment and everything around us, we wouldn't have to worry about people starving, because there wouldn't be gross human overpopulation.

Government corruption and stupidity causes more starvation than alleged overpopulation. That and growing so much corn to feed cars instead of people when there is absolutely absurd amounts of clean, efficient car food all over the place.

[WestWindReborn]

There were endangered and extinct animals long before humans were around.

big difference between natural selection and senseless eradication through ignorance and hate.

[Kalista]

Government corruption and stupidity causes more starvation than alleged overpopulation.  That and growing so much corn to feed cars instead of people when there is absolutely absurd amounts of clean, efficient car food all over the place.

I've already established that feeding the starving will only create a bigger problem. We produce more corn for the people, the starving people eat it, they become secure and reproduce, we have more and more people to feed. What happens when we've plowed every acre of the earth under, in order to grow corn to feed people, and there still isn't enough to feed everyone? Are we gonna take to the stars and go destroy the next fertile planet we come across? There wasn't enough food to feed everyone long before people were using corn as fuel, and if we completely stopped using it for fuel this minute, there still wouldn't be enough to feed everyone. That's because there are too many humans, and we're destroying everything in our attempt to control the world and everything in it.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Kalista

[Nine]

The only thing caused by saving the people that are starving is creating an even greater population increase.

It's amazing how full-circle this idea is, and how much truth is actually behind it =P By feeding the starving people who live in areas that can not support them (whether naturally or from government/ militia control) , we're just enabling more generations to starve in the future. If the people would die out, or diminish to a population that is self sustainable, no more starving people in that area. This adaptability, the simple act of dying, is what enables a species to actually live in the long run.

 

The problem I see in most of these types of topics is the general consensus that starving, suffering, dying people is a complete negative thing. It's a natural way of thinking out of predetermined bias for our species, and the fact we have the ability to sympathize and put ourselves in others' shoes. But really, people need to die-- people need to starve and succumb to diseases. Suffering is the bad side effect to death that raises the most concerns, but painless death has never been the norm. Eradicating diseases and parasites is probably one of the worst double-edged swords we continue to support.

 

[Edit] Haha, I posted a minute after you did =) Cheers.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Nine

[Princess Artemis]

I've already established [...]

You did no such thing. You opined. You did not establish. You took as given far too much that isn't, in fact, given.

[Kalista]

You did no such thing. You opined. You did not establish. You took as given far too much that isn't, in fact, given.

I may establish that it is my belief that this is the case, may I not?

[spyro76]

I may establish that it is my belief that this is the case, may I not?

That's true, but you presented it more as fact than as your opinion.

[Kalista]

That's true, but you presented it more as fact than as your opinion.

In that case, I apologize for the confusion. Please note, then, that I have established that, in my opinion, it is obvious that feeding those that are starving will only exacerbate the underlying issue.

[Princess Artemis]

I may establish that it is my belief that this is the case, may I not?

You may, if that is what you say you are doing. Establishment alone suggests something more substantial than opinion or belief.

 

I find it difficult to believe that humans are grossly overpopulated, if actually overpopulated at all, but you are certainly welcome to believe differently. Many people do.

[WestWindReborn]

It's amazing how full-circle this idea is, and how much truth is actually behind it =P By feeding the starving people who live in areas that can not support them (whether naturally or from government/ militia control) , we're just enabling more generations to starve in the future. If the people would die out, or diminish to a population that is self sustainable, no more starving people in that area. This adaptability, the simple act of dying, is what enables a species to actually live in the long run.

 

The problem I see in most of these types of topics is the general consensus that starving, suffering, dying people is a complete negative thing. It's a natural way of thinking out of predetermined bias for our species, and the fact we have the ability to sympathize and put ourselves in others' shoes. But really, people need to die-- people need to starve and succumb to diseases. Suffering is the bad side effect to death that raises the most concerns, but painless death has never been the norm. Eradicating diseases and parasites is probably one of the worst double-edged swords we continue to support.

 

[Edit] Haha, I posted a minute after you did =) Cheers.

which is why i don't sweat it when hundreds of people die in natural disasters, war, ect. ect.

 

its all just different forms of population control.

[SeaSong]

I'm being honest here, I'd rather donate to an animal cause than a human cause, not because I hate humans, but because some humans are greedy. I mean, if we didn't build cities, cause wars, create guns and everything, we wouldn't be living on a polluted Earth. It's not the animals' fault, it's our fault.

As for starving kids in poorer countires, okay, I feel sorry for them, but I wouldn't donate all/a large portion of my money to them. I just feel like the animal cause is more important in MY OPINION. I'm not forcing you to agree with me, but that's what I think.

If I could, I'd donate like 20-30% of my money to human causes and the rest to animals. And I wouldn't donate to any unreasonable causes like the army and fighting, but causes like people in poor countries if I were to donate money to human causes.

And plenty of animals die of starvation too, but we don't donate food to them now, do we? Humans aren't the only living things that matter on this planet.

Edited June 29, 2011 by SeaSong