Are humans more important than animals?

[Diame]

Who cares, its just a child. It's all our fault anyway for getting out of hand with our population. Animals do what they need to survive. We don't survive, we just chill and then die smelling like pee. Like we'd ever have to fight off a tiger on our way to our job at the bank~

[WestWindReborn]

Like we'd ever have to fight off a tiger on our way to our job at the bank

and if we did the tiger would just be murdered because "OMG we're humans, we can't be prey, we're the top of the food chain!". people have forgotten that we're are possible prey as well to anything stronger than us. hell, even a snake can bring us down.

[TPishek]

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.

Actually, the more developed a country gets, the lower its birth rate becomes. In an undeveloped country, people have tons of kids because most of them won't survive until adulthood, plus they need lots of help to work the fields, etc. As a country becomes industrialized, children become more of a financial liability rather than a help-- and there is more education out there about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Most of Europe is already in a negative population growth, and the USA is just barely keeping a constant population.

 

Here is a map of birth rate across the globe:

 

 

Since it takes 2 people to make a baby, any birth rate under 2.0 is a negative growth. That makes anything green and up positive growth, and anything blue negative growth.

 

Compare that to this map of world development. Darker blue is more developed, lighter is less developed.

 

 

You can't argue that helping people out just makes more people, because it doesn't.

 

Another reason your argument is flawed is because there IS enough food to feed everyone on the planet-- more than enough. The problem is distribution, because guess what-- undeveloped countries can't afford to import the food they need.

[Diame]

and if we did the tiger would just be murdered because "OMG we're humans, we can't be prey, we're the top of the food chain!". people have forgotten that we're are possible prey as well to anything stronger than us. hell, even a snake can bring us down.

I know, right? We are so weak and have close to nothing we can use to fight off anything that -would- attack us. This doesn't make us the "top of the food chain" at all. Just because we're smart doesn't mean we're immortal. Some people should remember that.

[TikindiDragon]

Another reason your argument is flawed is because there IS enough food to feed everyone on the planet-- more than enough. The problem is distribution, because guess what-- undeveloped countries can't afford to import the food they need.

Although, to be fair, dumping surplus food from the west into the third world won't actualy help any of the developing countries very much either. The world economy needs shaking to it's foundations to really change the problems of poverty.

[Kila]

Who cares, its just a child. It's all our fault anyway for getting out of hand with our population. Animals do what they need to survive. We don't survive, we just chill and then die smelling like pee. Like we'd ever have to fight off a tiger on our way to our job at the bank~

I'm sorry, but this really bothers me.

 

A child is completely dependent on their parent(s) for quite a long time. The human brain takes about twenty-five years to fully develop (especially in the ability to think ahead and think of consequences to actions). A child under ten cannot sustain him/herself.

 

Yes, there are those kids we see on the commercials who are thirteen and have to take care of their five younger siblings because their parents died of HIV/AIDs or war. They're in underdeveloped countries and it's not that uncommon.

 

In developed countries, they cannot work until they are fifteen-sixteen in the U.S. (I'm not sure about other country's child labor laws). And lots of them are put into a broken adoption system. They're more likely to get involved with drugs, gangs, and crime as a whole. I think it's worth donating to organizations that help these kids.

 

And I'm not talking orphans and abuse cases, either. In this economy there are several families struggling to get by, and their children suffer along with the parents. They lose their homes and have to live on the streets and in shelters, and for those families living paycheck to paycheck, they often go without food or new clothes/toys. It's a tough situation for a kid to be in. I know. I've been there.

 

Children should not have to lead such horrible lives. They shouldn't have to worry about where their next meal will come from or even if they get to eat, especially during summer months when there's no school to provide lunches.

 

But saying a young child doesn't deserve help "because we're human and we've made too many babies" really pisses me off.

 

A child is a child no matter where they live, and they need as much help and protection as the cute little animals.

 

Humans and animals are both important. It's stupid to put one above the other.

[Alpha Gryph]

I'm sorry, but this really bothers me.

 

A child is completely dependent on their parent(s) for quite a long time. The human brain takes about twenty-five years to fully develop (especially in the ability to think ahead and think of consequences to actions). A child under ten cannot sustain him/herself.

 

Yes, there are those kids we see on the commercials who are thirteen and have to take care of their five younger siblings because their parents died of HIV/AIDs or war. They're in underdeveloped countries and it's not that uncommon.

 

In developed countries, they cannot work until they are fifteen-sixteen in the U.S. (I'm not sure about other country's child labor laws). And lots of them are put into a broken adoption system. They're more likely to get involved with drugs, gangs, and crime as a whole. I think it's worth donating to organizations that help these kids.

 

And I'm not talking orphans and abuse cases, either. In this economy there are several families struggling to get by, and their children suffer along with the parents. They lose their homes and have to live on the streets and in shelters, and for those families living paycheck to paycheck, they often go without food or new clothes/toys. It's a tough situation for a kid to be in. I know. I've been there.

 

Children should not have to lead such horrible lives. They shouldn't have to worry about where their next meal will come from or even if they get to eat, especially during summer months when there's no school to provide lunches.

 

But saying a young child doesn't deserve help "because we're human and we've made too many babies" really pisses me off.

 

A child is a child no matter where they live, and they need as much help and protection as the cute little animals.

 

Humans and animals are both important. It's stupid to put one above the other.

Amen to all that is stated here. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[willrocks]

simple answer to the title...........yes

[PACMANnot]

I don't like people but I will donate to children foundations. They're our next generation, a generation that can do good, or do worse then now. I just happen to lean more towards animals because there's just too many of us in the world. 6 billion people in counting. If some sort of huge natural disaster were to hit and cut that number in half, there would still be too many people in the world.

 

You don't see 6 billion tigers roaming the earth because we killed most of them off- an I highly doubt that there ever was/will be 6 billion tigers in the world to begin with-, almost to near extinction. There are hundreds, if not thousands of animals on the endangered species list and most are there because of us humans and not moderating how we hunted them.

 

Way back in the early 1900s rivers were full of salmon, millions of salmon, so many you could reach into the waters and pluck one out. We colonist came, took the Natives land, and over fished them. It's been harder to catch salmon now because of how massive the wipe was. Yes, we made hatcheries, but the fish coming and going in those are weaker then the last because they were pampered. Most die in passing the dams. We're killing more animals then people are born in an hour.

 

I want the animals to live more then humans, because they're by far more interesting and likable then people are. In my opinion.

[Crisis]

You can say what you want about humans and animals, but humans are animals. And by god, I have just as much a right to survive as they do, and I'll be damn sure that me and my family (assuming that I will in the future have a family) do survive. I honestly don't care if animals gut hurt in the process, and I know they will, but that's life. Something dies so something else can live. It's not fair or easy, but that's how it is. One animal comes out on top, and that's the way nature works.

[iRorschachBot]

Animals are tasty. And legal to eat. For me, that's case closed. Humans>Animals

[Alice_101]

 

There are way too many humans in today's world, and we are overpopulating the Earth. Yes this came about because we have a larger brain capacity than other animals but we are still animals ourselves, and sometimes we forget that fact. The reason children are starving in the world is not only because of the poor political structure in those countries but also because the countries are simply too overcrowded.

 

If I had $1000 to donate between animal and human charities, it would all go to animal charities. This is not because I am unsympathetic to the human cause, but because as PACMANnot said, if half the human population was cut in half, there would still be too many humans, yet many other species are on the brink of extinction.

 

Yes people could sit down and talk for hours upon hours on how different countries are having political crises and that in turn is affecting the public in a negative way, but how would it affect all humans on the planet, and even the planet itself, if in 100 years thousands of species of animals we relied on for food, clothing, tourism, and many other things ceased to exist? Humans are not more important than animals, for humans themselves are animals. They make themselves seem more important, and try to forget that fact, but it will always come back to haunt them.

 

 

[PACMANnot]

You can say what you want about humans and animals, but humans are animals. And by god, I have just as much a right to survive as they do, and I'll be damn sure that me and my family (assuming that I will in the future have a family) do survive. I honestly don't care if animals gut hurt in the process, and I know they will, but that's life. Something dies so something else can live. It's not fair or easy, but that's how it is. One animal comes out on top, and that's the way nature works.

If you think about it, sometimes we humans kill animals just for their skin and fur, how is that to help us to live, other then to make money off the stuff (or if you like using them for blankets, to keep warm)? We may be animals, but does that mean we should wipe a species out because we're hungry and we happen to like eating that animal in particular? I'm not saying that everyone in the world should drop dead, I'm just saying use moderation. And what's natural about one species being on the top of the food chain, without something else to keep the population down?

 

There is nothing to keep the human populace in check. We've dominated over all matters of life, and we're only hurting ourselves in the process. There are too many people in the world, and one day the earth is not going to be able to support us. More people will go hungry and die out.

 

Earth's resources are finite. There is a limit to everything and once those limits are reached then people will be regretting ever having our species get out of control.

 

You have the right to live as much as anyone else does, but what do the other animals have to say about it? Nothing. We can't communicate with them to ask them how they feel about these matters. We just kill them for no reason other then for food(which we could get from plants mind you) and money.

[Crisis]

There is nothing to keep the human populace in check. We've dominated over all matters of life, and we're only hurting ourselves in the process. There are too many people in the world, and one day the earth is not going to be able to support us. More people will go hungry and die out.

 

 

Other than nature. It will stabalize itself. Take for instance wolves and moose I read about. (I can't remember where this happened though. It might be Alaska). There was a slow increase in the wolf population. As more food was needed to feed more wolves, they began to overhunt the moose. Eventually there weren't enough moose to feed all the wolves, and they started to die out. As the natural predator population began to decline, the moose population began to rise again. Since there were fewer wolves, they required less food and the population for both species eventually restabalized. The same thing will happen to people and animals. It's how nature works. I personally don't overhunt, and use all the parts of the animal I can. I was raised to conserve, and use everything. But I will still place my value above that of an animal.

 

You have the right to live as much as anyone else does, but what do the other animals have to say about it? Nothing. We can't communicate with them to ask them how they feel about these matters.

If a starving predator such as a lion comes across you, do you thin he would consider your feelings bout becoming food? No. It would do what it took to survive, and that's what I intend to do. If I have a gun and haven't eaten in a couple days, I'll kill just about any animal I see safe to eat. That's all animals do. Survive. And we are animals.

[Princess Artemis]

And what's natural about one species being on the top of the food chain, without something else to keep the population down?

Absolutely everything is natural about this. Polar bears are on the top of the food chain (yes, above humans and they know it too), they have no natural predators. Are you suggesting this is an unnatural state of affairs? Humans can be alpha predators when we want to be due to our innate intelligence and resourcefulness, but this is a precarious position for us. Bears, lions, tigers, wolves, raptors...humans really don't prey on them all that often. More than necessary, but honestly not that much. We share space with them at the top.

 

Do you consider humans to be the natural predators of lions, tigers, and bears, oh my? If so, why are you upset if we are doing what is natural? If not, what are their natural predators? By your argument, there must, naturally, be something.

 

sometimes we humans kill animals just for their skin and fur, how is that to help us to live, other then to make money off the stuff (or if you like using them for blankets, to keep warm)?

 

Since humans don't come equipped with our own set of fur, yeah, using other furs for keeping warm is a really, really good survival strategy. So yes, it does help us live. Cold weather is one of the greatest killers of humans there is, and animal fur does wonders to stave that off. After all, humans didn't burst onto the scene complete with factories to manufacture artificial fur or looms to make cloth.

 

There is nothing to keep the human populace in check.

 

We don't live forever you know. Our elderly die, and if there aren't enough young to replace them, we as a species will die too. Even now, most Western cultures plus Japan and China (I think) are committing cultural suicide--soon, those cultures will no longer exist because they stopped breeding enough to even maintain a stable population, much less grow. Where are you getting this idea that there is this huge explosion of people and we are just going to crowd out everything else on the planet? It isn't happening.

 

You are also wrong about there being nothing to keep population in check. Natural forces do this, but so does education. Wealth tends to slow it down as well. You really want to curb the number of humans? Invest in education and wealth creation for humans--well-off, educated people have fewer children as fewer children are needed when people don't have to scrape by just to survive. It's just nature: When life expectancy is low and resources scarce, there are many, many children in an attempt to make sure at least one of them succeeds. When life is good and resources abundant, children are few so as there is no need to waste time when likelihood is high that the children will succeed.

[PACMANnot]

Other than nature. It will stabalize itself. Take for instance wolves and moose I read about. (I can't remember where this happened though. It might be Alaska). There was a slow increase in the wolf population. As more food was needed to feed more wolves, they began to overhunt the moose. Eventually there weren't enough moose to feed all the wolves, and they started to die out. As the natural predator population began to decline, the moose population began to rise again. Since there were fewer wolves, they required less food and the population for both species eventually restabalized. The same thing will happen to people and animals. It's how nature works. I personally don't overhunt, and use all the parts of the animal I can. I was raised to conserve, and use everything. But I will still place my value above that of an animal.

 

 

If a starving predator such as a lion comes across you, do you thin he would consider your feelings bout becoming food? No. It would do what it took to survive, and that's what I intend to do. If I have a gun and haven't eaten in a couple days, I'll kill just about any animal I see safe to eat. That's all animals do. Survive. And we are animals.

From what I heard with the wolves was that we killed them off to near extinction and they are just now making a comeback. Good thing too because, like humans, the deer population had sky rocketed because the wolves were their main predators, and now that they're back they can put the population in check. With us humans, who knows what's going to keep us in check and when. Or if it'll be too late.

 

We have increased intelligence, have the technology to fend off plagues, we can extend the life of our elderly with organ transplants, and we can farm and grow our food. Can other animals do those things(I know some insects can with the farming and stuff) to keep their species going? No, they're under our hand and we have the power to say, "Kill all the tigers, kill all the fish, cut down all the trees, kill the wolves. etc." when we could try an stabilize the earth by reproducing less, or just letting the next natural disaster wipe most of us out.

 

Think about it: A lion doesn't have the advance intelligence we have, it's hungry and it doesn't know that it can live without food for weeks. It will attack to me, or you, to live. We know we can live without food for weeks and can be dependent on only water for that period of time. How would you expect to live if there was no food around for miles and if there was, you didn't know where? You would have to make do until you can find something to eat. Be resourceful, you don't have to eat an animal to get your nourishment, we are omnivores, there is an abundance of plants you could eat that can sustain you until your next meal.

[Daydreamer09]

From what I heard with the wolves was that we killed them off to near extinction and they are just now making a comeback. Good thing too because, like humans, the deer population had sky rocketed because the wolves were their main predators, and now that they're back they can put the population in check. With us humans, who knows what's going to keep us in check and when. Or if it'll be too late.l.

You're missing the point. Every habitat has a carrying capacity for different populations and when the capacity is reached, the food supply becomes scarcer and as a result, the higher ups in the food chain dwindle. When we humans reach OUR carrying capacity, our own population will drop. At that point, there will be an increase in our "prey" population. What will keep us in check is our food supply. This is a basic factor of ecology.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Daydreamer09

[elderberrysyrup]

Eventually the earth will hit its carrying capacity and the majority of humans will die. Nature will stabilize itself, regardless of how she does it.

 

I will put my value above an animal until I am dead myself.

 

Humans are nowhere near as destructive as anything nature can pull. 99.9% of earths species can die in less than a year, via underground volcano eruption. Or a large-scale eruption on the surface where the sun is blotted out long enough for only fungi and the things that eat fungi to survive.

 

 

[canobiecrazy]

I can be hopeful and tell myself that the food supply won't run out. That science will keep up with the growing demand.

 

But it won't. I just hope it happens after I die.

[Crisis]

We have increased intelligence, have the technology to fend off plagues, we can extend the life of our elderly with organ transplants, and we can farm and grow our food. Can other animals do those things(I know some insects can with the farming and stuff) to keep their species going? No, they're under our hand and we have the power to say, "Kill all the tigers, kill all the fish, cut down all the trees, kill the wolves. etc." when we could try an stabilize the earth by reproducing less, or just letting the next natural disaster wipe most of us out.

 

Yes we have increased intelligence. That's a tool for survival, and I plan to use it. Not to mention that by only eating plants, you ar suffering from defficiencies of certain vitamins or minerals such as calcium. It's not healthy.

 

Think about it: A lion doesn't have the advance intelligence we have, it's hungry and it doesn't know that it can live without food for weeks. It will attack to me, or you, to live. We know we can live without food for weeks and can be dependent on only water for that period of time. How would you expect to live if there was no food around for miles and if there was, you didn't know where? You would have to make do until you can find something to eat. Be resourceful, you don't have to eat an animal to get your nourishment, we are omnivores, there is an abundance of plants you could eat that can sustain you until your next meal.

And how am I suppossed to know when that next meal is That lion would be able to tie me over for probably a week or two provided i had a way to preserve it, and I'd take the chance.

 

[JaziandCo]

Think about it: A lion doesn't have the advance intelligence we have, it's hungry and it doesn't know that it can live without food for weeks. It will attack to me, or you, to live. We know we can live without food for weeks and can be dependent on only water for that period of time. How would you expect to live if there was no food around for miles and if there was, you didn't know where? You would have to make do until you can find something to eat. Be resourceful, you don't have to eat an animal to get your nourishment, we are omnivores, there is an abundance of plants you could eat that can sustain you until your next meal.

Yes, we are omnivores, which means we need both meat and plants in order to be healthy. You can survive only eating one or the other; people with allergies, those who make conscious food choices (vegetarians/vegans/carnivores), or limited access to both typically do, but to be at optimal health you need a balance of them both. Without one or the other you develop nasty deficiencies and begin to rot slowly in your own body.

 

And it's true, most of the top predators wouldn't think twice about eating a human if things came to it, just like most humans wouldn't think about going up against a lion or a bear for food unless they had to. Trophies and fur, yes, but not for food. Top predators like lions, tigers, bears (oh my), and raptors like eagles and hawks don't have any natural predator aside from themselves, and even then, each other isn't their first choice of food.

 

If a bear was starving and in dire need of food, it would do what it took to get something in its stomach, even if it meant eating a human, and from the looks of this thread, the bear would be pitied. If a human was put in the same position, he would be considered a murderer. We might be omnivores, but so are bears. We both need either meat or a source of nutrients that is very close to meat.

 

 

So are humans more important to animals? Yes, we are. We have the intelligence and the means to be keepers of our world. Yes, we should make sure that we sustain the balance of nature and not try to overly break things, but we also have to look after ourselves too. There are children dying every day from hunger or malnurishment, and it shocks me to think the very idea that "oh, it's just another human, how replaceable" exists in our world today. I can guarantee that those who believe that don't live in poverty or in third world countries where they'd have to see children suffering like that every day.

 

Just like how a lion looks after himself and his pride, it's only natural that I first take care of my species, then others. Children are our future, our next generation. If we don't take care of them, how can we expect them to take care of the earth? IMO, if you want humans to start taking care of nature, then you need to address the reasons why they act the way they do, instead of just scratching the surface.

[Diame]

Tired of seeing our "intelligence" as an excuse for us being more important than animals. Our "intelligence" is killing them and the environment, and ourselves. If we could smarten up then I might have faith in humanity and these people who say people are more important. The corruption is based on the decision of wealthy people and the leaders and government, so the people who CAN do something can't do too much, or anything at all because of these rich money-hogs. This is where our "intelligence" has gotten us. We can't even go into space because the government need their paychecks...

 

EDIT: These are also the people in control of which resources go where. So there's only so much we, the people who want a change, can do. So the children starving is our fault, completely. We have more than enough food and space to fit everyone. Again, its the hogs and their paychecks. Those people need to wise-up before it's too late.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Diame

[Princess Artemis]

This is where our "intelligence" has gotten us.

How long have you gone with absolutely nothing man-made? Lived without clothes, a house, shoes, eating utensils, a candle? I'm just curious since you don't seem to have much respect for human ingenuity.

 

People who can do something can actually do quite a lot. I've personally benefited from the charity of others more than once in my life, and I can't thank them enough for providing it. The actions of others, and yourself, do matter.

 

EDIT: These are also the people in control of which resources go where. So there's only so much we, the people who want a change, can do. So the children starving is our fault, completely. We have more than enough food and space to fit everyone. Again, its the hogs and their paychecks. Those people need to wise-up before it's too late.

 

Government corruption has a lot to do with it, yes. Do you think that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be done about it though? That those people are so powerful that the actions of the many will have no impact whatsoever, so we should just give up and do nothing, wait for them to act? Yes, they do need to act better. So do other people, those who would rather give up than attempt to make a difference, no matter how small.

 

You don't ever have to like humanity, though it's probably in your best interest to at least lighten up on your own kin a little.

[Diame]

How long have you gone with absolutely nothing man-made? Lived without clothes, a house, shoes, eating utensils, a candle? I'm just curious since you don't seem to have much respect for human ingenuity.

 

People who can do something can actually do quite a lot. I've personally benefited from the charity of others more than once in my life, and I can't thank them enough for providing it. The actions of others, and yourself, do matter.

 

 

 

Government corruption has a lot to do with it, yes. Do you think that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be done about it though? That those people are so powerful that the actions of the many will have no impact whatsoever, so we should just give up and do nothing, wait for them to act? Yes, they do need to act better. So do other people, those who would rather give up than attempt to make a difference, no matter how small.

 

You don't ever have to like humanity, though it's probably in your best interest to at least lighten up on your own kin a little.

No thanks. A tiger doesn't want my money. I'd rather be mauled my one then see my life slowly fall apart, which the government cleverly does. The reason why you needed those charity was because of them. And I didn't say those who can do something can't do anything at all, it's just not enough to matter. Yes, a charity might help where you live, but how does that show on a global bases? And Man-Made things are destroying the environment too. Again, our lovely "intelligence".

[Princess Artemis]

No thanks. A tiger doesn't want my money. I'd rather be mauled my one then see my life slowly fall apart, which the government cleverly does. The reason why you needed those charity was because of them. And I didn't say those who can do something can't do anything at all, it's just not enough to matter.

No thanks what? No thanks, you don't want to try to live without all the man-made amenities you so clearly despise just because tigers don't want your money? That doesn't make any sense, so I suppose it's not that...

 

You actually do not have any idea what charities have helped me and why, so it's really hard to assume it's because of greedy government types, innit?

 

Anyhow, yes, yes it is enough to matter. Ever heard the story of the man who stood on the beach and threw stranded sea stars back into the ocean? There were piles of stranded sea stars, and someone asked him how he could possibly do what he was doing, since it wouldn't matter. He picked one up, tossed it back into the ocean, and said, "It matters to that one." Why does something have to matter in REALLY! OBVIOUS! WAYS!!! to matter at all?

 

And Man-Made things are destroying the environment too. Again, our lovely "intelligence". dry.gif

 

You seem to be enjoying using your man-made computer with your man-made Internet (presumably in your man-made house while sitting in a man-made chair while wearing man-made clothes) all the same...

 

I lived near a lake for a while. Really, it was a mud hole by nature. Stank. Fish regularly died in it, floating to the surface in big frothy bunches. It was completely disgusting. However, because it was so completely disgusting, people decided to help out, and built some aerators into the bottom of the lake as well as managed a few other things, and now it's actually quite nice. In this case, people helped the environment.

 

I also live in an area that must be cleared of brush and have controlled fires regularly. The plants actually need fire to tell their seeds to sprout, and overall, everything is just much better off without so much brush about because too much means the fire burns too hot and becomes destructive. Guess what? The coyotes don't clean the brush! Humans do.