Are humans more important than animals?

[Husky51]

I'm just going to jump in here and say YES!!! most definitely....

 

I watch some of the Sea Shepard thing on Animal Planet and I am totally against hazarding the lives of the Japanese whalers at sea. Being a former Navy man, this strikes home to me. Ok, a lot of people don't like whaling, but you don't fight it by ramming other ships... I don't know what hapened to the skipper of the Steve Irwin, but I hope he got the book thrown at him.

 

In my book, people come before animals, period...

 

And if you don't like it, well, you have a right to your opinion as I do. Mine won't change...

 

A city near where I live is not permitted to improve an area within their limits because, horrors, the New Dehli Sand Fly is endangered!!! So what! Species have gone extinct many times before this and it wasn't all because of man. It happens.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Husky51

[elderberrysyrup]

 

I watch some of the Sea Shepard thing on Animal Planet and I am totally against hazarding the lives of the Japanese whalers at sea. Being a former Navy man, this strikes home to me. Ok, a lot of people don't like whaling, but you don't fight it by ramming other ships... I don't know what hapened to the skipper of the Steve Irwin, but I hope he got the book thrown at him.

 

Actually the other vessel rammed into the Steve Irwin.

[Husky51]

Sorry, soulless, if you were watching the film, the skipper of the Irwin turned the wheel hard to starboard (right) and hit the Japanese vessel... It was captured on the film. I don't see how any other analysis could be made. IMO, he did it intentionally, whether out of frustration or not, I don't know, but I have spent enough hours steering a ship to understand what I saw.

 

and, actually, this isn't the first time that Greenpeace has struck other ships at sea or sunk them at pierside.

 

last edit and then I'm dropping the subject. You may believe what you wish, I will not argue it with you nor anybody else. I have my opinion and that is that.

 

have a nice day...

Edited July 6, 2011 by Husky51

[Daydreamer09]

You'd be surprised by the number of people in the world that actualy do precisely that. I've never yet seen one of them accused of murder. Which means, yes, there is a distinct difference.

 

...

 

...If everyone would take a step back, think beyond their own selfish desires, and look at how our expanding populations are negatively effecting the world around us then perhaps we could begin to curb the problem. Heck if everyone would agree to have just the *one* child that would still result in negative population growth. But no. Everyone wants to have a family, everyone seems to want to have more than one kid, some people seem to think they should be having masses of them... and voila - unsustainable population growth.

 

...

 

Really a cancer is about the only thing that behaves the way humans are. With the current "It's not my problem" kind of attitude we'll just keep on growing until we destroy ourselves and our planet in the process.

That does not make it ethical and it does not make it moral to do so. There have been cases of large amounts of individuals who have stood back and watched a person dying right in front of their apartment building, without so much as lifting a finger to aid them. Of course they can't be accused of murder because they didn't do anything to harm that person. But it does not justify that you should do nothing in your power.

 

...

 

It's not selfish to want children or to have a family. Many individuals want a family of their own for the pure happiness of it. Wanting to be happy =/= selfishness.

 

Animals have large amounts of offspring, heck, look at cats and dogs. They'll have 4-10 in a litter. They do not worry about how their breeding impacts the globe, it's a instinctual thing to reproduce.

 

My ancestors had many children. In fact, my grandma was one out of 12 children in a farming family. Also, my father is one out of seven kids from a non farming family. I apologize to you and the rest of the world that what brought me into being is so destructive and yet is natural in the animal kingdom.

 

...

 

Many things in the world are cyclical. In my view, population growth and decline are one of them. My attitude isn't "It's not my problem", it is that "It's out of my control" and "What will be, will be." I also have the same view about death. Death is inevitable in the long run, so why spend my life worrying about such a thing?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Daydreamer09

[JaziandCo]

You'd be surprised by the number of people in the world that actualy do precisely that. I've never yet seen one of them accused of murder. Which means, yes, there is a distinct difference.

 

Unless you're a doctor, or are somehow trained to aid people in need.

 

Most people think of someone walking away from a person they could have helped as cold and heartless, and it's typically seen as something morally wrong.

 

 

 

People shouldn't have to worry about population growth when thinking about if they want kids. It should be whether they can afford and care for their children. It's completely natural to reproduce, even in large quantities. Many animals have as many offspring as their body and environment can sustain. Many of the larger animals will only produce one young at a time, but will also try to become pregnant (or sow seeds) as often as possible.

 

Making a choice not to reproduce, imo, is actually unnatural. That doesn't mean it's bad or wrong, but it shouldn't be seen as the superior choice. Just because I would rather adopt than fill the world with my own weak genetics doesn't mean that the family that can support eight kids shouldn't be allowed to have them.

 

A lot of the larger families also come from poorer countries where the children are seen as ways to pull in more money in order to sustain the family they already have. More children = more workers, more paychecks. Imo, the heart of the problem lies there, not in developed countries that already have negative population growth. When those countries are up to the rest of the developed world is when the population will start reigning itself in.

 

 

 

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.

 

I also was quite shocked to find a post like this. The attitude of, "animals > starving human children, if you don't like that then gtfo" is almost as appalling as the very idea of "who cares, it's just a starving child" or "I wish a natural disaster would happen and kill a lot of people". Surely none of these people have ever had that happen to them, or close to them, and are able to hide in the comfort of their developed countries while they see these natural disasters and sick kids on the magic black box that is the television.

[Lila]

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.

I saw this and I figured I'd make a point.

 

Animals sometimes help each other, no? People always help each other. Which isn't bad. But not everyone helps animals. Which is just as cruel (in my mind) as leaving a human to die. And saying you can't do anything, bull****, if you'd organize a team to lift a tree off of a human, you can organize a team to lift a tree off of an elk.

[Kestra15]

I saw this and I figured I'd make a point.

 

Animals sometimes help each other, no? People always help each other. Which isn't bad. But not everyone helps animals. Which is just as cruel (in my mind) as leaving a human to die. And saying you can't do anything, bull****, if you'd organize a team to lift a tree off of a human, you can organize a team to lift a tree off of an elk.

You've missed the point. She's talking about wanting a natural death so she isn't a strain on the planet, so I'm letting her die her natural death. Didn't say anything about not helping animals ;~)

[Lila]

You've missed the point. She's talking about wanting a natural death so she isn't a strain on the planet, so I'm letting her die her natural death. Didn't say anything about not helping animals ;~)

Well.

Then.

 

I can still counter this by saying letting someone die without even attempting to save them is wrong, and if they die, so be it. So you should feel compelled to rescue her, at least, even if she does want to die. Because wanting to die is just craaaaazzzzzay

[akiraa]

Animals are WAY important, and the endangered ones, like tigers, really need help, since it's us HUMANS that are killing them off. Also, animals would have a harder time helping themselves, humans on the other hand CAN even the poverty once can actually TRY to help themselves (even if it doesn't work) To be serious though, if I had a thousand bucks I'd probably split it evenly though.

[Daydreamer09]

Well.

Then.

 

I can still counter this by saying letting someone die without even attempting to save them is wrong, and if they die, so be it. So you should feel compelled to rescue her, at least, even if she does want to die. Because wanting to die is just craaaaazzzzzay

So... You're saying it is important to want to save both the lives of an animal and a person? That is a view I agree with.

 

I think Kestra15 was just trying to prove a point. There are quite a few individuals who have stated that they wouldn't mind if a large mass of people were to die and that they wouldn't mind being part of it either if it would cut down on human population. Anyways, If someone on the brink of death doesn't want help, there's nothing you can do about it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[Trope]

In my opinion, both are equal. If I see an animal in danger and a human in dire need of help, I'll do whatever it takes to save both. If I had to choose one of the two... I'd probably pick the human and blame myself for the rest of my life I didn't save the animal.

 

As for donating, I donate to animal shelters and wildlife organizations as they need it far more than all human organizations do. A lot of people donate to those already, so they have enough, while shelter after shelter has to close due to lack of funds.

 

PS. Vehement member here as well. While I'm not for the extinction of the human race per se, there are too many of us and it would do good if our numbers went down again. Not that I see that happen anytime soon with China lifting its 1 child policy.

[Kestra15]

Well.

Then.

 

I can still counter this by saying letting someone die without even attempting to save them is wrong, and if they die, so be it. So you should feel compelled to rescue her, at least, even if she does want to die. Because wanting to die is just craaaaazzzzzay

*is a first aider training to be a paramedic*

 

As DayDreamer said, I'm highlighting a point. This is a person wanting the extinction of humanity through quick, natural, relatively pain-free deaths - and being crushed by a tree is, on the scale of things, relatively quick and pain-free. So if they are in such a situation, would they still hold to their beliefs and tell me to let them die? Or will they beg to be saved?

 

Absolute and relative morality.

[TPishek]

Animals are WAY important, and the endangered ones, like tigers, really need help, since it's us HUMANS that are killing them off. Also, animals would have a harder time helping themselves, humans on the other hand CAN even the poverty once can actually TRY to help themselves (even if it doesn't work) To be serious though, if I had a thousand bucks I'd probably split it evenly though.

Remember though, it's not your Joe Schmoe American who's killing tigers off. It's starving people in 3rd world countries who have to do something to feed their families. So if you help those communities out, you're actually helping the tigers out. If you're living in a jungle, "helping yourself" out of poverty is generally going to be bad for the environment.

[xxAlbinoravenxx]

My opinion; humans are animals.

 

And well, I'm pretty sure this world would be a better place if homo sapiens didn't exist. What would other animals lose? They would have more territorries. There wouldn't be so much unnecessary hunting (I mean that you hunt just for fun).

[Kestra15]

My opinion; humans are animals.

 

And well, I'm pretty sure this world would be a better place if homo sapiens didn't exist. What would other animals lose? They would have more territorries. There wouldn't be so much unnecessary hunting (I mean that you hunt just for fun).

I just spent the last week in Italy, where the two semi-feral kittens who reside at the house hunt each other and small lizards. Not for food, but for practise - and for fun.

[LolliePopsRox]

I think animals AND humans are the same-like we pretty much took over the world from other animals. And yea humans ARE animals we are just dephormed monkeys

[dragcave:D]

honestly, i would go for the animals. i mean, as somebody mentioned on the first place, the animals are a very important part of the eco-systems, humans are overpopulated, and if humans were wiped out, animals would still live. so i would probably split it like 800 to animals. 200 to humans.

As well, whenever a human crisis appears, it takes like (what a week?) to get a fundraising thing. Animal endangered. probably like 3 months

[Rancid_16oz]

i think humans forget that we're technically animals too

 

and we're taking over the world!!! literally.

 

i don't value one more than the other, but i think animals deserve a lot more than what we're giving and taking from them.

[Kestra15]

honestly, i would go for the animals. i mean, as somebody mentioned on the first place, the animals are a very important part of the eco-systems, humans are overpopulated, and if humans were wiped out, animals would still live. so i would probably split it like 800 to animals. 200 to humans.

As well, whenever a human crisis appears, it takes like (what a week?) to get a fundraising thing. Animal endangered. probably like 3 months

So if you and your dog were hit by a car, you'd rather I tried to save the dog's life than yours?

[Fortune86]

I know it sounds horrible, but a lot of the major problems that we face are because of overpopulation. We compete for everything. Jobs, resources, food, land. There is only so much this planet can give us and as a result of our constant taking it's slowly being destroyed.

[SPQR]

i don't value one more than the other, but i think animals deserve a lot more than what we're giving and taking from them.

This.

 

Also, we obviously have a bias towards humans, because, well, they're our own species.

[Lila]

So if you and your dog were hit by a car, you'd rather I tried to save the dog's life than yours?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[dragcave:D]

So if you and your dog were hit by a car, you'd rather I tried to save the dog's life than yours?

Yes. Honestly, if it was a MOUSE in the car with me, i'd be yellin SAVE THE MOUSE. If it was like sick, or mangled beyond savior... well i'm not a (complete) idiot.

Edited July 26, 2011 by dragcave:D

[7Deadly$ins]

Yes. Honestly, if it was a MOUSE in the car with me, i'd be yellin SAVE THE MOUSE. If it was like sick, or mangled beyond savior... well i'm not a (complete) idiot.

Somehow, I doubt that's what you'd actually be saying. It's easy to say "in (life threatening situation here) I would act like (rational thought here)" but in the majority of cases your own survival instincts take over and rational thought goes out the window.

[Kestra15]

Somehow, I doubt that's what you'd actually be saying. It's easy to say "in (life threatening situation here) I would act like (rational thought here)" but in the majority of cases your own survival instincts take over and rational thought goes out the window.

This. Sorry guys, but I've seen enough trauma to be certain you'd rather I spent my time saving you than your dog.