Are humans more important than animals?

[elderberrysyrup]

I hope people realize that there are human-like 'plagues' that use up their resources and kill themselves off multiple times, right?

 

I'm pretty sure that is what happened to give us oxygen on this planet, is that there was a mass of bacteria that produced oxygen as a waste product and eventually killed themselves. Overpopulation happens with introductions of new species, which is not a new phenomenon because humans popped up. New species end up places through swimming, flying, and tides and whatnot.

 

I say save your money in general.

[auria]

To Princess Artemis:

 

Because I do still feel sympathy for human beings. They do cull the herd, but even if I'm willing to be part of a mass sacrifice for the sake of the planet, seeing people suffering from a natural disaster that they had no control over still bothers me. Which in turn, bothers me, because I recognize it as a contradiction. I can't really defend the sentiment.

And as idealistic as it may sound, I would also hope that the pandemic didn't involve a long, drawn out, suffering, painful death. Suffering with little hope of relief or with no way to get yourself out of it bothers me.

Edited July 5, 2011 by auria

[TPishek]

To Princess Artemis:

 

Because I do still feel sympathy for human beings. They do cull the herd, but even if I'm willing to be part of a mass sacrifice for the sake of the planet, seeing people suffering from a natural disaster that they had no control over still bothers me. Which in turn, bothers me, because I recognize it as a contradiction. I can't really defend the sentiment.

And as idealistic as it may sound, I would also hope that the pandemic didn't involve a long, drawn out, suffering, painful death. Suffering with little hope of relief or with no way to get yourself out of it bothers me.

Pandemics as a rule do involve a fairly drawn out death. If the disease kills quickly, it doesn't have a chance to spread far-- making it a localized bug, not a pandemic. As a result, pandemics generally have long incubation periods and slow painful deaths.

 

Pandemics are a natural disaster.

[auria]

Pandemics as a rule do involve a fairly drawn out death. If the disease kills quickly, it doesn't have a chance to spread far-- making it a localized bug, not a pandemic. As a result, pandemics generally have long incubation periods and slow painful deaths.

 

Pandemics are a natural disaster.

By definition, no, they do not. Just because the more well-known are commonly characterized by suffering and drawn out periods of pain, that does not mean that they involve anything "as a rule" other than being widespread.

 

Definition of Pandemic

 

Definition 2

 

 

 

Edit: Link name from Def. Reference to Definition 2.

Edited July 5, 2011 by auria

[TPishek]

By definition, no, they do not. Just because the more well-known are commonly characterized by suffering and drawn out periods of pain, that does not mean that they involve anything "as a rule" other than being widespread.

 

Definition of Pandemic

 

Definition 2

 

 

 

Edit: Link name from Def. Reference to Definition 2.

By definition, no. But practically, there are certain traits that make a pathogen likely/able to become widespread. Obviously, one of those traits is the contagion factor. The longer a pathogen is in a person without actually killing it, the more people it can be exposed to. And generally, something that acts slowly enough to have a long incubation period is also going to act slowly enough to cause terrible deaths. Most pandemics, both historical and modern, involved slow painful deaths dragged out over days or weeks. Examples: Typhoid fever, smallpox, bubonic plague, influenza (Spanish flu, Asian flu, Hong Kong flu, Asiatic flu, bird flu, swine flu), typhus, tuberculosis, leprosy, malaria, yellow fever, HIV, ebola and SARS.

 

A pathogen that acts very quickly is a pathogen that does not get spread.

[Princess Artemis]

TPishek was speaking in generalities.

 

I would not hesitate to call a pandemic a natural disaster.

 

Anyhow, I am satisfied that the sentiment is recognized as difficult in the extreme to defend and won't press further on it. Some people wish for things such as that without realizing how horrible the thing is that they wish for.

[Yowl]

When I hear people saying they thing natural disasters are good I have to stop and wonder how they'd react if they lost their family or a friend in one. Would they just say 'oh well that's population control' and move on?

 

People suffer in natural disasters and I'm sure if it was their family or friends or even actually THEM. They'd be barking a different tune. It's one thing to SAY it, but a whole other thing to actually have it happen.

[auria]

TPishek:

The examples would be the basis of the idealism. Preferably it would be something based on a common, widely exported food product that would then contaminate a water or other food supply without being something that would need a human carrier to suffer through the contagion process.

Though I do see where it would qualify as a natural disaster, I don't generally categorize disease with tsunami/tornado/hurricane/earthquake.

 

Princess Artemis:

Wherein lies my dilemma. It makes me feel like a rather terrible human being to have that thought process.

[TPishek]

TPishek:

The examples would be the basis of the idealism. Preferably it would be something based on a common, widely exported food product that would then contaminate a water or other food supply without being something that would need a human carrier to suffer through the contagion process.

Though I do see where it would qualify as a natural disaster, I don't generally categorize disease with tsunami/tornado/hurricane/earthquake.

 

Princess Artemis:

Wherein lies my dilemma. It makes me feel like a rather terrible human being to have that thought process.

Because food poisoning is sooo quick and painless? O_o

[Cheeze]

There are people here saying that they would rather let a human child starve to death than a dog or tiger. These same people are saying that they dislike the whole human race for being disgusting, cruel, etc. Well you are certainly proving your point.

 

That kind of mindset is very dangerous. I bet Hitler didn't value human life too much either. What you people are suggesting is that all he did was help bring the overpopulated human race down to a better level.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Cheeze

[Kestra15]

To Princess Artemis:

 

Because I do still feel sympathy for human beings. They do cull the herd, but even if I'm willing to be part of a mass sacrifice for the sake of the planet, seeing people suffering from a natural disaster that they had no control over still bothers me. Which in turn, bothers me, because I recognize it as a contradiction. I can't really defend the sentiment.

And as idealistic as it may sound, I would also hope that the pandemic didn't involve a long, drawn out, suffering, painful death. Suffering with little hope of relief or with no way to get yourself out of it bothers me.

Should a tree ever drop on you, remind me not to bother saving your life then. After all, that would be an entirely natural way for you to die, and it is your wish to be culled.

[AlternateMew]

I do not feel that humans are more important. I feel that non-humans (I refuse to say "animals" to refer to non-humans, as we're animals as well) should have closer to the same rights as humans than they do. Or rather, we should have closer rights to them. But that's a little off topic, isn't it. <>.<>

 

People tend to think of themselves as above other animals. They think they're superior, and thus deserve the most. But you know what? I think our "superiority" shouldn't be used to say we're more important and thus can do as we please. It should be used to help all.

 

And directly to the OP, yes, I think the same way as your friend, sorry. I can see your point that there are humans in need, but understand that we are overpopulated at the moment. Not that there aren't people in need (And trust me, I know. My family is struggling really bad financially right now), but there are other important things as well.

 

If the charity money should go to anything, IMO, it should be to educate humans about how our overpopulation is effecting the planet, and how to breed responsibly to take that number down without killing off the ones alive already. If we're so smart, we should be able to keep our own population in check.

 

As for which is more important, I say neither. I would just as soon save a non-human as I would a human. Both parties have a right to life, and both worth saving when in need.

[Nine]

I bet Hitler didn't value human life too much either.

Lolol Godwin's Law!! =P

 

There's nothing dangerous about thinking that way, actually. It's just mind food. Acting on it is what you need to watch out for =)

 

The whole 'if it was your family dying' argument just goes back to the issue of bias and our predisposition towards it. Well yes, if you or someone you cared about had influenza you would wish it were eradicated or had a full proof cure. But that does not mean influenza should be eradicated. Human beings have the amazingly evolved thought processes that allow us to not only put ourselves in other people's shoes (bias), but also take them out and look at the big picture (realism). So if someone claims that natural disasters are an inherently good thing, I wouldn't accuse them of saying suffering is good or of being inhumane.

 

So sympathizing is just as natural as the ability to know when not to sympathize, and there's nothing unnatural about that. I think that's the contradiction that tends to confuse and upset a lot of people who find themselves defending natural disasters, starvation, disease, etc. The mind is a pretty crazy guy.

[Princess Artemis]

So sympathizing is just as natural as the ability to know when not to sympathize, and there's nothing unnatural about that. I think that's the contradiction that tends to confuse and upset a lot of people who find themselves defending natural disasters, starvation, disease, etc. The mind is a pretty crazy guy.

There is a bit of a difference between "Natural disasters happen" and "I want natural disasters to happen", however. One is just being realistic about the world. The other? Nah, that's not realism. "I want natural disasters to happen and I volunteer to be a victim" is it's own special class of gruesome, presumably because the volunteering part is added in to make the person feel better about wanting others to die.

 

Attitudes do inform actions.

[Daydreamer09]

...I can see your point that there are humans in need, but understand that we are overpopulated at the moment. Not that there aren't people in need (And trust me, I know. My family is struggling really bad financially right now), but there are other important things as well.

 

If the charity money should go to anything, IMO, it should be to educate humans about how our overpopulation is effecting the planet, and how to breed responsibly to take that number down without killing off the ones alive already. If we're so smart, we should be able to keep our own population in check.

Humans are NOT overpopulated. Not YET anyway. If we were, we'd be fighting each other over life-sustaining resources. We'd be having wars over food, freshwater and maybe even space.

 

Sure, you can say some areas have a high population density and others very little food and water. However, what you and apparently many others fail to realize is that unlike many other species, we have the ENTIRE planet as our habitat. The earth is a big place. Not to mention, humans are quick to adapt to changes and new environments.

[sapphiredragon73]

I've never thought of humans as very good... I'd just prefer if all the humans died out and all the animals survived... yes including me... but that is to say, after the humans clean up all the pollution and crap they've made in the world. I really think that everything would have taken a natural course without the so-called"help" of humans. Call me emo, yell at me, whatever. I would probably just throw all my money to animals, none to humans. There's my view on this

bright future if I rule the world, eh?

[Cheeze]

I am going to take this opportunity to ask every single person who said that they would rather save a tiger than a human, if they are vegetarians. If not, then they are hypocrites. It's one thing to say that humans and animals are equal, but most people voting for the tiger are actually putting humans BELOW them. So why then, as a human, would you eat these gods of animals? Checkmate.

[sapphiredragon73]

*is checkmated*

 

you have a point there, cheeze. I'm not vegetarian, but I still put humans below tigers... hmm... that's a point I'll have to think about.

[TikindiDragon]

Humans are NOT overpopulated. Not YET anyway. If we were, we'd be fighting each other over life-sustaining resources. We'd be having wars over food, freshwater and maybe even space.

 

Sure, you can say some areas have a high population density and others very little food and water. However, what you and apparently many others fail to realize is that unlike many other species, we have the ENTIRE planet as our habitat. The earth is a big place. Not to mention, humans are quick to adapt to changes and new environments.

In that case would you please tell the government of the US to start allowing immigration from England again please? You have a lot of space in the US, there's extremely little space in England, and I would like to move to somewhere where it's not so crowded.

 

@Cheeze invoking Godwins law - there's a difference between killing people and doing nothing. It's a difference that's well observed in the medical profession. Withholding aid is in no way, shape, or form the same thing as commiting mass genocide.

 

I am going to take this opportunity to ask every single person who said that they would rather save a tiger than a human, if they are vegetarians. If not, then they are hypocrites. It's one thing to say that humans and animals are equal, but most people voting for the tiger are actually putting humans BELOW them. So why then, as a human, would you eat these gods of animals? Checkmate.

 

I also don't eat endangered animals. I wouldn't eat a tiger if you paid me. I am, on the other hand, quite happy to eat a cow for the simple reason that it's been raised to be eaten. It's not a case of all animals > humans. There's a scale, and humans fit somewhere along it. Admittedly, in my mind, that's only marginaly above farm animals and pests. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a scale.

 

Really, can't you come up with anything better to argue your point?

[Alpha Gryph]

I find myself very disturbed by this topic. That there are people in this world who would put the life of a vicious, emotionless animal over my own. I might be dying, but that doesn't matter, I'm just an evil human adding to the overpopulation. Save the tiger...

 

Snap at me for saying this, I don't care. That's just the vibe I'm getting here, it's put me at great unease. I believe animals and people are equal on the scale, one is not more important than the other. But given the choice to theoretically "save" a human or tiger... It'd be the human every time!

 

Ick.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Alpha Gryph

[blackchimera]

I am going to take this opportunity to ask every single person who said that they would rather save a tiger than a human, if they are vegetarians. If not, then they are hypocrites. It's one thing to say that humans and animals are equal, but most people voting for the tiger are actually putting humans BELOW them. So why then, as a human, would you eat these gods of animals? Checkmate.

Just because I am not a vegetarian does not make me a hypocrite. Tigers are carnivores; they eat other animals, including humans sometimes. Therefore, it is acceptable for me to eat other animals (but not people . Besides, people nowadays are probably filled with transfats) And I'm not eating endangered animals. I also watch where my food comes from and I won't get anything from suppliers who are under suspicion of animal cruelty.

 

Personally, I refuse to consider myself a human. It is not what I am spiritually, so I will not acknowledge any connections to humanity. I do put humans, as a species, below other animals, but perhaps above insects. This does not mean that I refuse to recognize individuals, however.

 

Also, to Daydreamer09, I believe that humans are overpopulated. Just because humans have the freedom to migrate to all parts of the globe does not mean they aren't hurting native animal populations. Humans bully native animals out of their original territories and habitats, which is what causes animal-human conflicts that unfortunately tend to end with the senseless killing of those animals, when they could be moved to a preserved area to be given another chance.

 

And finally, to Alpha Gryph: Animals are not emotionless. Humans can be just as vicious, though in a variety of manners both similar and different for how you define "vicious" for an animal. Murderers are vicious, but so are some humans with their words, especially when they bully people to death.

Edited July 6, 2011 by blackchimera

[Yowl]

I find myself very disturbed by this topic. That there are people in this world who would put the life of a vicious, emotionless animal over my own. I might be dying, but that doesn't matter, I'm just an evil human adding to the overpopulation. Save the tiger...

 

Snap at me for saying this, I don't care. That's just the vibe I'm getting here, it's put me at great unease. I believe animals and people are equal on the scale, one is not more important than the other. But given the choice to theoretically "save" a human or tiger... It'd be the human every time!

 

Ick.

Pretty much this.

 

This thread honestly makes me kind of worried for people's loved ones.

[Cheeze]

In that case would you please tell the government of the US to start allowing immigration from England again please? You have a lot of space in the US, there's extremely little space in England, and I would like to move to somewhere where it's not so crowded.

 

@Cheeze invoking Godwins law - there's a difference between killing people and doing nothing. It's a difference that's well observed in the medical profession. Withholding aid is in no way, shape, or form the same thing as commiting mass genocide.

 

 

 

I also don't eat endangered animals. I wouldn't eat a tiger if you paid me. I am, on the other hand, quite happy to eat a cow for the simple reason that it's been raised to be eaten. It's not a case of all animals > humans. There's a scale, and humans fit somewhere along it. Admittedly, in my mind, that's only marginaly above farm animals and pests. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a scale.

 

Really, can't you come up with anything better to argue your point?

"@Cheeze invoking Godwins law - there's a difference between killing people and doing nothing. It's a difference that's well observed in the medical profession. Withholding aid is in no way, shape, or form the same thing as commiting mass genocide."

 

You clearly haven't read this whole thread. There are people here that would wipe the human race off the face of the planet if they could do so without harming the precious tigers. You may not be for that, but there are people here who are, and my comment was directed at them. Saying "You invoked Godwin's Law! Your arguement is invalid!" is a pretty childish thing to do. My point still stands. I would also argue that withholding aid that you can easily give with no damage to yourself or others is indeed just as bad as causing the harm yourself, but that is an arguement for another thread.

 

 

 

"I also don't eat endangered animals. I wouldn't eat a tiger if you paid me. I am, on the other hand, quite happy to eat a cow for the simple reason that it's been raised to be eaten. It's not a case of all animals > humans. There's a scale, and humans fit somewhere along it. Admittedly, in my mind, that's only marginally above farm animals and pests. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a scale."

 

I wasn't only talking about eating tigers here. You may put humans in the middle of the scale, but the overwhelming majority here puts them at the bottom. That is who I was arguing with. My post was in no way directed at you, and I'm not sure why you seem to think it was.

 

 

 

"Really, can't you come up with anything better to argue your point?"

 

Well, since you still haven't gotten to the meat of my arguement, I think it is fine as is.

 

But if you insist, I'll throw this one at you as well.

I value intelligent life over unintelligent life. If you disagree with this, and say that all life is equal, then you are more than likely a hypocrite as you are probably that same guy arguing for abortion by saying "it's just a ball of cells."

 

 

Double checkmate.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cheeze

[Nine]

There is a bit of a difference between "Natural disasters happen" and "I want natural disasters to happen", however.  One is just being realistic about the world.  The other?  Nah, that's not realism.  "I want natural disasters to happen and I volunteer to be a victim" is it's own special class of gruesome, presumably because the volunteering part is added in to make the person feel better about wanting others to die.

 

Attitudes do inform actions.

The difference is true, however in the case of someone wanting to die and take others with them, I don't think it would be limited to hopeful wishing with the weather. They might have some other issues going on that does not solely concern the natural death of humans. It'd probably just be a guise for wanting to take frustrations out on humanity itself. The attitudes of the disturbed definitely have the possibility of turning into actions, but thankfully I don't think (and hope) no one here is at that point.

 

But that's getting a bit off topic, I guess =P

 

My suggestion to those of you deeply disturbed by this topic is simply, please do not read the posts in here. I do not think scaring people is anyone's intention, and I apologize on my behalf if I have frightened some =( If you find a discussion about the human/animal mortality upsetting, I would surely turn away.

[TPishek]

Just because I am not a vegetarian does not make me a hypocrite. Tigers are carnivores; they eat other animals, including humans sometimes. Therefore, it is acceptable for me to eat other animals (but not people . Besides, people nowadays are probably filled with transfats) And I'm not eating endangered animals. I also watch where my food comes from and I won't get anything from suppliers who are under suspicion of animal cruelty.

 

Personally, I refuse to consider myself a human. It is not what I am spiritually, so I will not acknowledge any connections to humanity. I do put humans, as a species, below other animals, but perhaps above insects. This does not mean that I refuse to recognize individuals, however.

One could say that tigers do not have human-like concepts of morality, and thus do not truly grasp the meaning of eating meat. One could also point out that tigers are obligate carnivores.

 

You, on the other hand, do (?) have morality. That means you can understand what it means to take an innocent life just to feed yourself. You are also an omnivore, perfectly capable of living solely off of plant matter.

 

I find it incredibly presumptuous to state "I rank humans under all animals other than insects," then say "But it's ok if I eat higher-ranked animals because I don't consider myself human." Seriously, do you realize how that sounds?!