Are humans more important than animals?

[lachrymation]

Humans... are much more important, although that does not mean we are better than the other species. We are the only ones that have been granted the gift of speech, and thought. Well, it's true, we are quite a dumb species as you come to think about it, polluting the planet and whatnot. But even though we're more granted than the others, the thing is that we still should respect the animals, such as stopping animal testing, (taking advantage of the helplessness of them) and we should think about other animals, before we pollute or such. We were created in God's image, so we are entrusted with the job of taking care of the planet we live on. =)

 

... sorry to tread on your tail if this offends you in any way...

 

[RheaZen]

What if the kid belonged to a mom who had 5 others and the animal was one of, like, 30 remaining of its species?

The animal, then. Situation-dependent.

 

Overall I'm biased towards animals.

[KageSora]

To be completely honest, I'd rather donate for humans before animals. Yeah, I might split up my money in half for donation, one for the animals, the other for humans, but...think of it like this. The animal can't exactly think "Oh, I'm suffering!" I mean, it knows something bad is happening, but they can't exactly think why. They can't exactly wonder why they have to go through that.

So when I'm suffering emotionally and have no idea why, because I can't figure out what's causing the pain, that makes it less important to fix than somebody who's suffering emotionally but knows exactly what the cause is, then? Because in that situation I know something is wrong, but I don't know why I'm suffering. I can wonder about it, but all I'll really know in the end is "I'm suffering." until it goes away, or I miraculously figure it out.

 

And animals do know why their suffering, to an extent--if the animal is suffering from a lack of food, they know they're hungry and starving and they'll try to find more food to deal with it. If it's a lack of water, they know they're thirsty and they'll try to find more water to deal with it. If it's an injury, they know they've been hurt, and they'll try to deal with it however they can.

 

Not sayin' that it's right to totally ignore humans who are suffering, though.

[blackberry57]

In the case from the OP i would choose to donate my money to tigers, they are beautiful and majestic animals that we may loose forever.

 

Plus millions of dollars are already going to "starving children".

[Zeekaice]

Does not knowing what exactly causes the suffering make it less real?

Same way you should say that you would rather donate for the sake of adults and not human infants who, by the way, also have no idea why they're going through something (brain development stage issues and all that jazz). :|

I do find it horrible. That's why I think it's best to divide your money.

 

But just because the infant doesn't understand doesn't mean it won't grow older and come to understand later on in their life.

 

But if I could only donate to one, I just think humans are the better candidate because, well, I'm human. I'd rather help someone of my own species first.

 

Kage: I'm saying humans are more capable of understanding. Our brains have developed enough to be able to think things through. Animals haven't.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Zeekaice

[Cokuruscana]

You know, this is really tough for me to answer.

 

I would, if at all possible, split it 50/50.

 

I could not live with myself with either possibility: letting an innocent human die when I could have helped them, or letting an innocent animal die.

 

Both humans and animals can do some horrible things. Neither are near perfect, and all play a huge role. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't help much if either one were to die out.

 

So, I think both are equally important. I don't like the idea if letting either suffer.

 

However, I do completely agree on the over-population control. I'm not sure if we're truly overpopulated yet, but having child limits and monitored birth control would go a long way.

[MysticTiger]

This question is pretty much one that has no answer. It all depends on your viewpoints.

 

Personally, I would much rather give money to saving animals. The main reason humans are in the dire straights they are in is because of humans. Humans are the lead intelligent species on the planet, yet we can't seem to fix problems that even insects have figured out. Hunger? Homelessness? Disease? It all comes down to how one person can either destroy or save thousands. A single paycheck from a big corporate owner can feed thousands. Tigers don't have that Luxury. They can't simply give other Tigers charity. They can't pull out a gun and kill the humans that attack them. They can't state rules and laws to protect them from death, hunger or disease. They can't buy a deed to land they can live on.

 

To me, giving money to a charity to protect something that can't protect itself from humans is much better then giving money to a charity that may or may not feed one human somewhere in the world.

 

Just because a Tiger can't cry out for help doesn't make it a lesser being.

Edited November 18, 2010 by MysticTiger

[lightbird]

But if I could only donate to one, I just think humans are the better candidate because, well, I'm human. I'd rather help someone of my own species first.

It's not so much a matter of who gets the money than the plan on how it's used~

 

Kage: I'm saying humans are more capable of understanding. Our brains have developed enough to be able to think things through. Animals haven't.

 

And they never will, because that's not how evolution necessarily goes. Is a sentient mind the mark of a worthier species on its own?

 

but having child limits and monitored birth control would go a long way.

 

And sterilization once you hit a certain number of children but still have potential to give birth to some more. For years I've been thinking that this would be a good idea. /awaits bricks

 

Humans are the most evolved species on the planet

 

Brain-wise. /nitpicky science student

Edited November 18, 2010 by lightbird

[MysticTiger]

And sterilization once you hit a certain number of children

I totally agree. I find it sick that people have several kids simply to gain sympathy or charity or welfare. I work with children all day and a good 80% of those parents don't even watch their children, despite the danger of a busy road RIGHT THERE. Most of the parents just scream at their children or, if the child is screaming back, give them candy to shut them up.

 

It's like when people buy a puppy dog because it's "so cute" but then once it grows into a huge dog, it loses it's charm and they get rid of it.

 

It's sick.

Edited November 18, 2010 by MysticTiger

[KageSora]

And sterilization once you hit a certain number of children but still have potential to give birth to some more. For years I've been thinking that this would be a good idea.

I support this, too.

 

I also support sterilization if you've proven to be too stupid to deserve to have kids. There are oh so many people in the world that this would eliminate from having kids...

[RheaZen]

Agreed on sterilization :>

 

[Cokuruscana]

Honestly? I would be completely happy to see sterilization implemented to reduce numbers.

 

It would solve a lot of problems. Even a lot of my family said they'd be alright with that (especially since quite a few of us are anti-abortionists, and figure that's a better alternative, but I digress.) In fact, my mother said she'd like to see a two-children limit. I guess it's because we live in an area with a lot of irresponsible parents who pop out so many kids just to get money.

 

I also agree on how the money is being used. I'm all for donating for either human or animal, but I can never be sure if it will truly be put to good use. :/

[lightbird]

Agreed on sterilization :>

 

Or this. Linked for possibly disturbing.

 

In fact, my mother said she'd like to see a two-children limit. I guess it's because we live in an area with a lot of irresponsible parents who pop out so many kids just to get money.

 

Naw, I actually think that people should be allowed to have more than two if there was also some lawsuit to prove that they're not neglectful, can feed the children etc. Spaying tiem for the rest, though.

 

Sigh, sleep is calling. /poofs for now

Edited November 18, 2010 by lightbird

[RheaZen]

Humans are the most evolved species on the planet

Huh? Personally I find cockroaches to be much better. Sure, they're not smart, but dang are they well-designed.

 

lightbird... just, wat. My brain.

[KageSora]

I think a 2 kid limit would be good, but NOT with sterilization required after that. They should be allowed to have as many kids as they can prove they can provide for, because some families are just more responsible than others.

Edited November 18, 2010 by KageSora

[MysticTiger]

I agree on the two kid limit with a possibility for more children later on. Even if people do have the ability to provide for more children, there should at least be a waiting period between the first two kids and having a third child. Something like 5 years, so the parents would understand and have time to think about another child. I think most parents would find the two children are more then enough and they wouldn't want to go through raising another child again.

Edited November 18, 2010 by MysticTiger

[Vexx]

I personally think no one should have any kids until the oldest one or two generations have died out. Adopt- there's a lot of kids out there that need a loving home. You don't need to spawn something to be a loving parent.

[RheaZen]

I personally think no one should have any kids until the oldest one or two generations have died out. Adopt- there's a lot of kids out there that need a loving home. You don't need to spawn something to be a loving parent.

Seems a little extreme, plus if measures were put in the number of kids in the system should go down.

But yes. My uncle says he wants to adopt, and I was really proud to hear. But then my mom was like "no you should have a kid" and then I'm all like "motherrrrrr" and it was awkward, because I am her loin-spawn.

[crazywargod]

Humans... are much more important, although that does not mean we are better than the other species. We are the only ones that have been granted the gift of speech, and thought. Well, it's true, we are quite a dumb species as you come to think about it, polluting the planet and whatnot. But even though we're more granted than the others, the thing is that we still should respect the animals, such as stopping animal testing, (taking advantage of the helplessness of them) and we should think about other animals, before we pollute or such. We were created in God's image, so we are entrusted with the job of taking care of the planet we live on. =)

 

... sorry to tread on your tail if this offends you in any way...

Not technically. There are birds that can talk. Sure it is mostly mimicry it is still speach. We are just the most advanced (brainwise).

 

 

I am with cockroaches being better then humans physically. While I think the're pests they are so much more resilient then we are.

 

 

As for the topic. I can never wish death on something (exept ants, flys, and spiders. (NASTY ***S)). But I do think we, humans, are overpopulated. Slow down the breeding. So taking this into consideration about 70/30 in favor for animals. While I think the animals deserve it more I do feel the need to help out my race, though I've given up on them.

[grimace]

Humans are the most evolved species on the planet

No they aren't. Maybe in regard to intelligence, but higher intelligence doesnt mean most evolved.

[spyro76]

From a totally ruthless point of view humans have overthrown the balance of nature. Natural selection no longer applies, so we have unnatural selection now.

 

From my point of view, there's some people worth saving, there's some that are not.

[crazywargod]

I forgot about the two child limit thing. I am very against it. There was a book series about there being a two child limit and a house that had an illegal third child. Things didn't go so well as I remember.

 

 

Infertility or nothing I say.

[bluesonic1]

I'd rather give the money to animal charities than "save the starving kids in Africa". People have a choice, those people chose to have kids in those conditions rather than try hard and resolve their lives. Animals don't; cruel humans just take them in, abuse them and throw them back out again.

I know I'm human too, but I hate humans. We're so cruel to the earth and still think we're the best species of them all. We still have much to learn I think.

[RheaZen]

I forgot about the two child limit thing. I am very against it. There was a book series about there being a two child limit and a house that had an illegal third child. Things didn't go so well as I remember.

 

 

Infertility or nothing I say.

Fiction, right?

 

I don't quite get the second part of your post.

[Vexx]

I'd rather give the money to animal charities than "save the starving kids in Africa". People have a choice, those people chose to have kids in those conditions rather than try hard and resolve their lives.

....in Africa, rape is pretty much like saying hello when meeting a stranger here. :l a lot of them don't exactly have much of a choice in that.

There's also the fact it's not the kid's fault it was born there. They didn't choose to be there.

I'd feel sympathy for the children. Not for the people that had them.