Jump to content
hibini

Are humans more important than animals?

Recommended Posts

I would say that they're equal. Tigers, humans, mice, fish, and all other animals can feel and think. Just because they didn't build huge civilizations and wreck the earth, that doesn't make them stupid. I'd say it makes them smarter than us.

As for donating, I'd donate to animals. They do need it more than humans...Everyone that I know would donate to humans, and animals need help, too xd.png. Plus, I feel more connected with animals, so to me, they're more important. When I look a the he big picture, I would say that animals need more help - at least those that are endangered do.

Meh. Fail phrasing, and most people hate me for my views, but it's how I feel.

Edited by Snow Plow

Share this post


Link to post
I would say that they're equal. Tigers, humans, mice, fish, and all other animals can feel and think. Just because they didn't build huge civilizations and wreck the earth, that doesn't make them stupid. I'd say it makes them smarter than us.

As for donating, I'd donate to animals. They do need it more than humans...Everyone that I know would donate to humans, and animals need help, too xd.png. Plus, I feel more connected with animals, so to me, they're more important. When I look a the he big picture, I would say that animals need more help - at least those that are endangered do.

Meh. Fail phrasing, and most people hate me for my views, but it's how I feel.

But also in the big picture, helping humans is helping animals.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Exactly. You're saying this now, but in the end we'd all rather save ourselves than some animal that will probably die in the next few years. Sad, but true.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd save the last animal on Earth rather than the last human other than myself on Earth.

 

Nature can evolve up a better species.

 

Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd save the last animal on Earth rather than the last human other than myself on Earth.

 

Nature can evolve up a better species.

 

Simple as that.

You'd rather you and an animal than you and a human.

[Note that you are a human]

If you believe your latter statement so much, why not save two animals and sacrifice yourself?

Edited by Voxezi

Share this post


Link to post

Just coming into the topic, this is my stand:

 

Honestly...there are billions and billions of humans. There are more than a few species of animals in nature going extinct. Humans will never be able to be a part of wild nature again. We exist on a higher plane of being. People talk about animal populations overcrowding. WE are overcrowding. And when we have the resources to support at least most of the 6 billion of us, when I hear about animals in captivity and hunters that kill for sport, it does make me irritated.

 

In the state that earth and nature is in right now, I do indeed care more about the animals. Because once they all die because of a lack of conservation, and the ecosystems fall apart and the world is left with people, when die, Earth would theoretically be dead. Animals aren't less than us. We aren't better than them. Evolution doesn't have favorites. It's just how it happened, so I think it'd be good pay more attention to the animals for once.

 

In fact, I appraise animals for leading lives simpler than ours.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all for sacrificing your own life for that of an animal, heck, I do it all the time when I throw myself into the street to rescue feral kittens from turning into highway pizza. But knowingly sacrificing someone's brother, sister, friend, mother, father for an animal that probably won't even thank you for it and be too freaked out to do more than bite you and try to get away? No, I don't think that's right at all. =\

 

Like I said I'm constantly divetackling these feral kittens (who's mother refuses to get caught in a trap), and they're anywhere between 4-8 weeks before I never see them again. Every single one of them has immediately clawed or bitten me in an attempt to get away, and even though I've gotten to the point where I can grab them without injury, they still struggle and hiss. They don't thank their rescuer, and neither will a wild lion. They'll just try their best to get away.

 

Go ahead and sacrifice your own life for your ideals, but don't sacrifice someone else's just because you don't like humans =\

Share this post


Link to post
But also in the big picture, helping humans is helping animals.

Not necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Not necessarily.

I agree here. We've distanced ourselves in so many ways from the basis of nature, with our intelligence, cooperations, civilization, and technology, that while we are biologically classed as animals, we cannot say we reside in life in the way that they do.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree here. We've distanced ourselves in so many ways from the basis of nature, with our intelligence, cooperations, civilization, and technology, that while we are biologically classed as animals, we cannot say we reside in life in the way that they do.

I'd have to agree with that, although I do believe that animals have their own intelligence that we can never understand.

And I would sacrifice myself to save my cat. Some random other person's cat/dog/whatever, maybe, maybe not. The same goes for people. I would die for a friend, but someone who I don't know on the other side of the world? I'm not sure. I'v never been in a situation where I was able to do that, so I can't say. But I can say that if I was going to save either an animal that I didn't know or a human that I didn't know, I'd choose the animal. Especially if it was an endangered species, but even if it wasn't. I just see them as better, more worthy beings than us.

Share this post


Link to post
In fact, I appraise animals for leading lives simpler than ours.

Simple =/= easy.

Share this post


Link to post

Go ahead and sacrifice your own life for your ideals, but don't sacrifice someone else's just because you don't like humans =\

You could turn that the other way, too. Sacrifice your own life for your ideals, but don't sacrifice an animal's life because you don't like animals. Why should human be worth more? In the end, it has to be your choice, and neither one (sacrificing a human for an animal or an animal for a human) is truly wrong.

 

On another note, I have trouble liking people who would sacrifice millions of animals for a few humans. My best friend thinks that animal testing is okay because it saves humans. On medicine, I suppose that it's okay, as long as the animals can be treated with it, too, but for shampoo and soap? That's wrong. After having that conversation with her, I'm finding it harder to be around her. I keep going back to the thought that she thinks its okay to torture animals for stupid products like shampoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Simple =/= easy.

I meant it in the sense that humans (and here I'm making a broad generalization) tend to fill their lives with unecessary drama, the common he-said-she-saids, social mishaps, facebook bullying, and all of that sort.

 

Animals' lives are simpler in that they are to the point. The focus is survival. Our lives may be easier to maintain, but for some reason, many people can't keep it simple. The one-track life of an animal is what I'm speaking of appraising.

Share this post


Link to post
You could turn that the other way, too. Sacrifice your own life for your ideals, but don't sacrifice an animal's life because you don't like animals. Why should human be worth more? In the end, it has to be your choice, and neither one (sacrificing a human for an animal or an animal for a human) is truly wrong.

Because I'm an omnivore and meat is tasty. Because we can use tools, we are among the top predators. Take away our tools and we're pretty low on that list, but you get what I mean. I just think it's shocking when people say "if an animal or a human was about to get hit by a bus, I wouldn't think twice about the human". It's cold, it's callus. You (general you, not you specifically) wouldn't bat an eye if an old granny or a baby was about to die, but a mouse absolutely must be saved? That doesn't jive well with me.

 

On another note, I have trouble liking people who would sacrifice millions of animals for a few humans.  My best friend thinks that animal testing is okay because it saves humans.  On medicine, I suppose that it's okay, as long as the animals can be treated with it, too, but for shampoo and soap?  That's wrong.  After having that conversation with her, I'm finding it harder to be around her.  I keep going back to the thought that she thinks its okay to torture animals for stupid products like shampoo.

 

Both of you have good points. Animal testing is often unnecessary and cruel. Spraying or squirting substances into a rabbit's eyes to test shampoo and see if it's "kid-friendly", no, I don't like that either. However it's also true that due to animal testing we not only know more about humans, but about animals themselves. Your (again, general) pets and farm animals wouldn't be able to live as long today with as many conditions if we didn't have animal testing. In order for something like a replacement metal hip to work for a dog with severe hip dysplasia and might otherwise need to be put down, testing must occur first.

 

Also remember that medicine for humans has improved in leaps and bounds due to animal testing. The first open heart surgeries were preformed on animals and perfected before they even thought about trying it on a dying "blue baby", but because of that we have more people surviving to live long, healthy, lives.

 

I don't like everything that happens in the "name of science", but I also recognize that without it we wouldn't have survived very long as a species and that even our pets, livestock, heck, even zoo animals and those on conservations wouldn't live nearly as long as they do now.

 

 

 

I meant it in the sense that humans (and here I'm making a broad generalization) tend to fill their lives with unecessary drama, the common he-said-she-saids, social mishaps, facebook bullying, and all of that sort.

 

Dolphins rape each other and even other species (including humans, if they get the chance). They "play" with other, weaker, animals by smacking them back and forth until the thing is beaten to death and then lose interest in their "toy". They'll hunt and kill something, shred it to pieces, but then leave it without taking any meat from it. Primates have also been documented to be socially cruel to each other and other species, just for the heck of it. Heck, even your average house cat will torture its prey until it's bored, kill it, and occasionally leave it there because they don't feel like eating it. Animals are a lot more complex than you think.

Share this post


Link to post

...I would care if an old granny was about to be killed. I'd just care about the animal more. If I could, I'd save them both. Then again, if it was an ancient mouse vs. a baby anything, I'd save the baby because it has more years to live. I suppose the fact that I'm a vegetarian factors into why I can't see how a person can not care about death and torture - of anything, animal or not. Just because animals don't have tools, that does not make them unintelligent. They simply have a different type of intelligence than we understand.

I guess that if animal testing saves more lives than it takes away or ruins through torture, it's worth it. Although I still think that it's wrong, I know that that's a pretty naive point of view. Those lives can be human or animal, but it has to actually save them. If they could figure out a way to do it more humanely, I'd be more okay with it, but the entire point is that they see the reactions in animals, so I guess that's not going to work.

EDIT: Also, in general, why use animals? What makes them dispensable? They can feel, too, so why test on them? There are lots of people with bumper stickers and signs that say, "Stop torture, blah, blah, blah." Of course, I'm all for it. But do they realize that their shampoo and soap, etc. was made with the help of torture? Why stop people from hurting people when animals can feel as well? Even if you think we're smarter, you can't deny that they have nerve cells and can feel pain.

Edited by Snow Plow

Share this post


Link to post
I agree here. We've distanced ourselves in so many ways from the basis of nature, with our intelligence, cooperations, civilization, and technology, that while we are biologically classed as animals, we cannot say we reside in life in the way that they do.

I didn't mean "Humans are animals herp so helping them is helping animals derp." I meant that it isn't, as I believe others in here have said, your average American going and chopping down the rainforests and killing endangered tigers or whatever because they feel like destroying ecosystems today. It's people that are living in extreme poverty and have no other way to make their livelihoods and feed their families. Putting money into conservation efforts is throwing a rug on the problem. At the end of the day, there are still people that are going to go and tear down their habitats and kill them because they need to for themselves.

 

This is the root of the problem. If you address the poverty, disease, starvation, then you have people that are more willing to listen to you when you say that the animals and vegetation need to be preserved.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd pick animals myself simply because there are 6 billion of us and we're destroying the planet. Biodiversity is important and a lot of humans are actively pushing for actions that would destroy it. One example I can think of off the top of my head is when someone actually tried to get the government to round up all the wolves in a region, reduce each pack to one M/F pair, and sterilize them so the packs stay that small and human hunters can have more elk to shoot. And they thought that would help the wolf population somehow. Sense, this makes none.

 

Humans are horrible people.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

...I would care if an old granny was about to be killed.  I'd just care about the animal more.  If I could, I'd save them both.  Then again, if it was an ancient mouse vs. a baby anything, I'd save the baby because it has more years to live.  I suppose the fact that I'm a vegetarian factors into why I can't see how a person can not care about death and torture - of anything, animal or not.  Just because animals don't have tools, that does not make them unintelligent.  They simply have a different type of intelligence than we understand.

I guess that if animal testing saves more lives than it takes away or ruins through torture, it's worth it.  Although I still think that it's wrong, I know that that's a pretty naive point of view.  Those lives can be human or animal, but it has to actually save them.  If they could figure out a way to do it more humanely, I'd be more okay with it, but the entire point is that they see the reactions in animals, so I guess that's not going to work.

Quite a few people in this thread have said "I wouldn't save the last human on earth vs any animal" and to me that's like... Really? You would be so cold hearted that you'd ignore someone else's suffering AND the suffering of their friends/family to further your ideals? Like I said, I'm all for risking your own life. But if there was a toddler and a feral kitten in the road and I was only able to reach one in time, I probably wouldn't even notice the kitten until after I'd pushed the toddler out of the way. The toddler would have family and friends who would be shell-shocked and in greif for years. The mother cat and kittens would stop caring within days if not hours. While there are sad stories of dogs and cats that try to protect the corpse of their friend from other cars, they're usually either mates or very new mothers, and still give up and shrug on within a few days, and the occurrence itself is actually not that common when you see how many animals get hit by cars every year.

 

I rate intelligence three ways. Tool using, problem solving, and inter-species communication. Classic examples of the latter are Koko the gorilla who learned sign language, and Alex the parrot who didn't mimic but actually thought and rationalized his words. Now, humans are relatively decent at all three of these. We're tool users and problem solvers, and several of us have learned to "speak dog" or something similar with our pets and livestock. I'd rate animals like dogs, cats, pigs, etc rather average on the intelligence list, with cows being lower. You give a cow a fence and it stares at it dumbly. You give a dog a fence and it solves the problem by digging under it or jumping over it (or throwing itself against the weak spots). By using that system I can safely say that quite a few animals are quite a bit less intelligent than humans. Ironically the ones that come close to us in intelligence are also much more cruel than their simpler cousins.

 

Forgive me for saying, but there's not really a humane way to solve many health problems. In order for a Parvo vaccination to be perfected, the test subject must be stuck full of chemicals that the scientists think would work and exposed to Parvo. That is a completely debilitating disease. The affected dog would be in agony if it contracted the virus. However, if it works, they've come up with a way to save the lives of thousands of puppies. In order to test a hip replacement, the dog's hips must be replaced, which means that if it doesn't work, the dog will be in extreme pain every time it moved. In order to test a theory for open heart surgery, a living heart must be cut open and sewn back up. I think testing should be kept to a necessary level and those in charge should provide as much comfort to the animals in question as possible, but the experiments aren't always going to be pain-free.

 

 

 

Now, I'd be a vegetarian because I absolutely hate the meat industry. Hunting for meat as a whole is a lot more humane than many practices of the meat industry. The animals live in optimal conditions of their own choosing and have a relatively quick death. However, I'm allergic to quite a bit of plant matter, so I must have a diet of mostly meat in order to survive. It doesn't really mean that I'm accustomed to death and torture, but it does mean that I've owned up to the fact that in order for me to eat today, at least one animal had to die.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

As to the last part of your post, why animals? A lot of humans wouldn't undergo the testing that I just mentioned, even if it would help everyone in the long run. Not many people are going to give up their baby so a doctor can test an open heart surgery procedure on it and hope it survives. It's often easier to use animals, and many animals have body parts that are similar to ours. Pigs, for instance, have hearts that are nice and close to humans. That's why pig heart dissection is often part of an advanced-bio or med student's classwork. Too many people need healthy human organs to live for them to be placed in front of a med student and cut to pieces, so we substitute with animals.

Edited by JaziandCo

Share this post


Link to post

In addition to "why animals" animals live much shorter lives that we do. This is actually incredibly helpful, because when testing a vaccine, for instance, on a mouse, you can see if any complications spring up in old age. You hear about these from time to time in humans; a drug that worked wonderfully and then thirty years later people who took it have extreme complications. Additionally, you can see if there are issues with the offspring. In mice you can chart several generations of mice relatively quickly, and so you can see if the children are born with defects as a result of the testing.

Share this post


Link to post

Quite a few people in this thread have said "I wouldn't save the last human on earth vs any animal" and to me that's like... Really? You would be so cold hearted that you'd ignore someone else's suffering AND the suffering of their friends/family to further your ideals? Like I said, I'm all for risking your own life. But if there was a toddler and a feral kitten in the road and I was only able to reach one in time, I probably wouldn't even notice the kitten until after I'd pushed the toddler out of the way. The toddler would have family and friends who would be shell-shocked and in greif for years. The mother cat and kittens would stop caring within days if not hours. While there are sad stories of dogs and cats that try to protect the corpse of their friend from other cars, they're usually either mates or very new mothers, and still give up and shrug on within a few days, and the occurrence itself is actually not that common when you see how many animals get hit by cars every year.

I have heard many stories of animals - horses usually, because that's what I read - living in depression just like humans after their friends die. One circus horse starved herself to death because her friend had to be put down. My friend's cat is on anti-depression medication because he was so sad after his friend got killed by a car. Don't tell me that animals don't care. I know they do. Many can't cry or communicate with us, so we don't always know that they're grieving. Some people, too, don't show their grief, but it's still there.

 

EDIT: (For the why animals on animal testing) And yes, I suppose that that does make sense, I didn't think of it. Not that I think it's right, I'm still naive enough to say that I don't think it is. Still - Humans wouldn't give up their children. Animals wouldn't, either, if they had a choice. What makes it right to take animals away from their families for testing and not humans?

Edited by Snow Plow

Share this post


Link to post

Overall, I think it's a little on the ludicrous side to put people above animals. I respect and care about both equally. Just like Snow Plow is saying, just because they aren't us does not at all or in any way mean that they feel any less than we do. I could care less that they don't look or act like us. Anything with intelligence, emotions, and the ability of expression I would indeed risk myself for or make an effort to conserve or care for.

Share this post


Link to post

funny weird moment:

When facebook bullying was mentioned, i thought about a dolphin on a computer.

serious time:

It really depends on the situation for any would you save save __ or __. LIike, i'd save young vs. old, endangered over common, stuff like that. It just really depends, so you can't really say until you have an actual situation. If i only had time to save one, i'd push one out of the way, and probably like jump on the car to try to stop it, or like yell really really loud.

Share this post


Link to post

200 bucks to the tigers and 200 for crocodiles and 600 donated to animal shelters and WWf and things like that (not greenpeace).

 

Live is something we can only judge subjective.

To every human, no matter what, some lives are more important than others.

 

Like ,my family is way more important than a stranger, our dogs are also more important than the live of a stranger, to me.

 

The only one who can really tell you whats more "valuable" in terms of worth, would be the one the christians call God, or any other beeing that creates souls and life.

 

If there is no one like this, every judgement we make is right, not for everyone, but for us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have heard many stories of animals - horses usually, because that's what I read - living in depression just like humans after their friends die.  One circus horse starved herself to death because her friend had to be put down.  My friend's cat is on anti-depression medication because he was so sad after his friend got killed by a car.  Don't tell me that animals don't care.  I know they do.  Many can't cry or communicate with us, so we don't always know that they're grieving.  Some people, too, don't show their grief, but it's still there.

All of those animals have been domesticated and are far removed from living the hard life of the wild, where their friend might die at any given second due to malnurishment or an attack from another animal. They actually get quite used to death and dying. Domesticated animals have been taken from their parents to be raised by humans at ages younger than they'd split off in the wild. Dogs are pack animals and are extremely unlikely to chase away their litter at 4 months unless they sense something's wrong with the litter. However, the puppies are either given away or sold to humans at about that age, and they grow up with a rather stunted view of the world because of it. That's also why domesticated animals (or tamed/bred wild animals) cannot just "return to the wild". They've learned to rely on their surroundings giving them everything, including companionship. That's why they go into decline when something happens to their friends.

 

Horses are an animal I'd consider rather intelligent, as are cats. There's also a difference between grief and loneliness. Koko the incredibly intelligent gorilla perked right up after she cried over the loss of All Ball (the kitten she had as a pet) once her handlers allowed her to choose two more kittens to "own". There are pets who have a friend die who perk right up on the appearance of another animal in their setting. Is that grief? Or is it just that they're accustomed to sharing their space and now they're lonely? I'm not saying they don't care, but they definitely have learned to shrug off their grief quickly. Just recently, my vet treated a small dog who's owner had died. The dog ate a cavity into his owner's body and was found sleeping partially inside said cavity. I don't think that dog felt much grief, even though he'd lived with his owner for years.

 

Another example are mother cats, who, like rodents, will occasionally devour or attack their babies if they sense something's wrong with them or that conditions aren't favorable. Birds will push their young from the nest if they're sick. They don't think twice about that sort of thing. If a human did that, we'd consider them a psychopath.

 

 

EDIT: (For the why animals on animal testing) And yes, I suppose that that does make sense, I didn't think of it. Not that I think it's right, I'm still naive enough to say that I don't think it is. Still - Humans wouldn't give up their children. Animals wouldn't, either, if they had a choice. What makes it right to take animals away from their families for testing and not humans?

 

Many human mothers don't want to give up their children to be raised by others, does that mean pet ownership is wrong? Many humans would probably vomit if a hunk of a human leg was placed in front of them for dinner, but we're still built to be omnivores and eat meat. Many humans don't like the fact that leashes for toddlers are around, so should all dogs be walked off a leash?

 

Like I said, there are pros and cons to animal testing. But right now, the medical testing has pros that outweigh the cons. The shampoo and soap and perfume thing, that's just horrible. But the recent medical discoveries that make life much easier for both animals and humans tell me that something good is happening there.

Share this post


Link to post

cats. There's also a difference between grief and loneliness. Koko the incredibly intelligent gorilla perked right up after she cried over the loss of All Ball (the kitten she had as a pet) once her handlers allowed her to choose two more kittens to "own". There are pets who have a friend die who perk right up on the appearance of another animal in their setting. Is that grief? Or is it just that they're accustomed to sharing their space and now they're lonely?

In both instances, more animals were introduced to the depressed animals. It didn't work. The circus horse died with another horse sharing its stall and Pumpkin the cat is on anti-depressants even with another cat in his house. It's not that they fight, it's that they miss their friends.

 

EDIT: and I really can't speak for the dog who ate his owner. Obviously, they hadn't bonded. You can't judge every animal by that, though. And I'm pretty sure that it's instincts that make cats, rats, and birds kill their sick children. It helped them to survive, as the sick and weak were weeded out.

Edited by Snow Plow

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.