Are humans more important than animals?

[Millennium07]

Humans are animals.

I am, however, going to assume you mean "Are Humans more important than OTHER Animals", in which, I would say no, we are all of equal importance, however Homo Sapiens are pretty much the only species I consider my "least favourite", because we've buggerded up the planet.

[Kila]

Personally I think this planet would be better without Humans messing it up with wars and global warming. Many disgraceful people keep hunting down endangered animals for food, cloths and even sport. But some people have the kindness and decency to actually do something about it. And I know that some people from different countries are suffering from things like starvation and diseases. However if you think about it different species are going extinct because of disgraceful Human behavior and if we don't make better cloning machines (that can clone animals from a tiny bit of the bone or something like that) then those animals will remain extinct for ever. If I had £1000 I would put half for both Humans and animals but if I did want to give extra money away then I would give it to the animal charity.

Climate change would have happened without the Industrial revolution, anyways. The planet has gone through several warming and cooling periods. Man's pollution is adding to what's already there, but nature has put out far more through volcanic eruptions. Science also says we're entering a period of global cooling.

 

Uh, the people who are poaching animals are usually doing it for traditional medicines. Tiger bones go into traditional Chinese medicines, and rhino horns get ground up into an aphrodisiac. If farming endangered species was allowed, boom. There goes poaching, because people will readily be able to get their tiger skins, meat, bones, etc.

 

I'd also like to point out that some animals are just poorly designed. The panda has a breeding window of a few days, and if that window is missed the female won't enter heat for another year.

 

Humans are not more important than animals, but humans are also animals. We're just animals that are self aware. We have instincts like other animals, and it irks me when people say humans aren't animals because we are. We just have a big impact because we don't always see how our actions will affect every little thing.

[amyrokz]

personally, i like animals AND people. plus, humans are animals. anyways i think that we should help animals more than people, but still help people. here is my explanation: there are way too many people with all these '19 kids and counting' and all those shows about teen pregnancy, and so there are tons of people having babies out the wazoo (lol I've always wanted to use that word) and did you know that elephants are pregnant for two years, and all animals are killed by humans but in comparison, barley any people are killed by animals. but don't get me wrong, there are tons of ways people could improve.

[Nine]

Tiger bones go into superstitious Chinese magic powders, and rhino horns get ground up into a placebo with no scientific evidence to support it.

Fixed.

 

One of the lesser known inhumane concoctions based on nothing more than myth is bear gallbladder bile. Though there has been testing refuting claims of super special properties, bears are still drained of their bile through shunts and kept in tiny cages until they die. Apparently, there are rumors of poaching parties in the western states that hunt bears for their gallbladders, which certainly doesn't surprise me (most bear populations being eradicated in their own countries).

 

Even more sad is that there are physicians and practitioners trying to provide actual medicines in lieu of the magical placebos, even offering natural alternatives that use spices, plants, etc. It's an uphill battle for them, because if there's one thing that humans are stubborn with it's traditional beliefs.

 

I despise all poaching, but above all others that superstitious nonsense earns a spot in one of the most despicable reasons for unscrupulous slaughter. I'm not saying that you or anyone else here supports it, don't get me wrong, but I feel that these kinds of things defy any sort of logical reasoning.

 

I approve of the armed guards that patrol areas of rhino populations and support their actions of shooting and killing human poachers. That is one example of animals being more important than humans I can get behind.

[Tiffashy]

Okay guys, am I the only one? Today a girl I hate (for tons of reasons, don't let me get in to that) but is kinda friends with my friends came over to us and was like "YES! we chose to donate to tigers for our project". I said "don't you think humans are in more need of help then...tigers. I mean there is tons of suffering within humans." She got mad and was like "There are 6 billion humans and not that many tigers, the world is overpopulated so let the humans die for all I care!" I was like "umm...I don't think you would want to die". She overreacted, AGAIN.

 

Does everyone else think that tigers are way less important then humans. I mean, wouldn't you want to help out a starving child in Africa then help out poor suffering tiger. Tigers are important to me. But so are humans.

 

Anyway, what are your opinions? Am I crazy and ruthless? Or am I right about humans? Say you had a thousand bucks. How would you divide it between an animal charity and a human related charity (and not you please, even if the money sounds nice). Discuss.

I would have to agree with your friend. Humans are very over populated and we breed more faster then rabbits!

I would also agree towards your friend that tigers need more help because they are getting wiped out because of us. Some stupid idiots hunt them for sport and greedy ones will do it for money. But at least there are some people trying to put a stop to it.

 

Animals are way more importent then humans. Without animals, the human race is nothing.

[Kestra15]

Humans are very over populated and we breed more faster then rabbits!

Not really. Humans are not ready to reproduce until well into their second decade of life and take nine months to produce one or two sprogs. Rabbits are ready to produce by six or seven months, take only 30 days to gestate, and are ready to breed almost straight away. So I think you'll find we are very much slower than rabbits.

[tanglepelt3]

If I had $1000 dollars, I would give it all to an animal charity. Humans are already WAY overpopulated. Because of overpopulation, humans are killing other animals. Also, humans kill animals for their pretty fur which is for want, not need. Animals rarely kill humans at all. Humans are reproducing very fast, and killing animals at the same time by reproducing. I have to say, I kind of agree with that girl.

 

Edit: By the way, humans take 9 months to be born, but their is a human born every minute (if I remember correctly) somewhere on Earth. Also we are finding cures for sicknesses, while other animals die from their sicknesses. Sickness helps keep animals in balance, but if you find a cure for every one, there's no point in having them at all.

Edited January 3, 2012 by tanglepelt3

[Silverwingwyvren]

In my opinion animals are more important. Humans are having such a power trip that they try and find every justifiable reason to kill an animal. Humans in all are too violent way more than animals are. Plus humans don't know what extinction feels like humans aren't even close to endangerment at all. And humans get attack by animals a lot because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have exotic animals as pets which is asking to get attacked. Animals feel just as much as we do an go through more pain in a day than we go through in a year. So when it comes down to it, I'd help the animals first before humans. I'm not saying they're over populated but they need to stop building every where there's good land or forest just leave it alone and you won't have coyotes attacking your dog or you, or mountain lions killing you or bears or any other animal. They were there first so they want to know what the heck is going on, preys getting relocated or is driven out by people so they adapt to survive.

[grimace]

Animals as a whole are unarguably more important.

Especially since humans would go extinct without animals.

[-platinum-draco-]

 

Edit: By the way, humans take 9 months to be born, but their is a human born every minute (if I remember correctly) somewhere on Earth. Also we are finding cures for sicknesses, while other animals die from their sicknesses. Sickness helps keep animals in balance, but if you find a cure for every one, there's no point in having them at all.

Actually, I think its at least three a second.

 

 

 

I made a nice post a while ago, so I don't need to post again. Just wanted to exaggerate and correct this point. I'm, situationally, for animals. It really depends.

[Five-OhBelowZero]

Actually, I think its at least three a second.

On average, five humans are born er second, and 2 die, according to 2007 research. This leaves a net worth of 3 more living humans a second.

 

But, yeah, humans are overpopulated, I agree with your friend. I think the tigers are just slightly a better cause. With $1,000, I'd probably send 650 on tigers, and the rest on humans. Just my opinion, though.

[Silverwingwyvren]

Animals as a whole are unarguably more important.

Especially since humans would go extinct without animals.

Exactly, the planet depends on them more than us.

[lightningsky]

animals, to me are more important...i feel like it's our fault that species are dying out. like the tigers and poaching. i'd donate to a 'save the animals' cause before a 'save the humans' cause. just because, well i never was a people person anyways...

 

not to mention i've been grown up like that; my best friend's family is all for animals and they don't like people in general that much. so it's kind of an opinion what you think is more important.

 

animals can't think like we do...i feel like we should help them out before we help ourselves...we cause more problems to both sides than they do, i believe.

[Kila]

Fixed.

 

One of the lesser known inhumane concoctions based on nothing more than myth is bear gallbladder bile. Though there has been testing refuting claims of super special properties, bears are still drained of their bile through shunts and kept in tiny cages until they die. Apparently, there are rumors of poaching parties in the western states that hunt bears for their gallbladders, which certainly doesn't surprise me (most bear populations being eradicated in their own countries).

 

Even more sad is that there are physicians and practitioners trying to provide actual medicines in lieu of the magical placebos, even offering natural alternatives that use spices, plants, etc. It's an uphill battle for them, because if there's one thing that humans are stubborn with it's traditional beliefs.

 

I despise all poaching, but above all others that superstitious nonsense earns a spot in one of the most despicable reasons for unscrupulous slaughter. I'm not saying that you or anyone else here supports it, don't get me wrong, but I feel that these kinds of things defy any sort of logical reasoning.

 

I approve of the armed guards that patrol areas of rhino populations and support their actions of shooting and killing human poachers. That is one example of animals being more important than humans I can get behind.

I'm well aware that they're like snake oil the old charlatans used to sell. I used the term "traditional" incredibly loosely.

 

They've been used in the culture for years. To suddenly expect people not to use them, even uif it's only a placebo effect, would be like trying to tell Mexicans to stop putting cinnamon in their chocolate. It's been done for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

 

Which is why I support the farming of endangered animals so they can use bred stock instead of poach. Yes, yes, I know many endangered species are hard to breed in captivity, but when the alternative is poaching the wild population...

 

On the "humans are overpopulated" argument....kindly take a look at the birth and mortality rates around the world. There's a negative population increase in advanced countries. It's the third world countries that have the most children because they're more likely to die.

 

So if you want to cut back on human population, help third world countries (which isn't always possible because sometimes the charitable donations get taken by corrupt governments or soldiers in many of Africa's civil wars).

[Wends]

You know, I was about to respond to this post with a few statistical facts to counter the anti-human statements that are prevalent throughout this thread, stating that we're the reason for animal decline; while I won't argue this, you guys do know that we are in fact the reason some species continue to exist, yes?

 

For example, the African sub-species of Cheetah likely wouldn't still be around without human intervention. Their popular uprising as a hunting cat in Egypt between 6000 and 3000 BC helped increase their numbers and bolster a stagnating, straggling population that had been scientists estimate was in the low 100s, barely staggering to that number from the suspected <10 that had survived their completely natural mini-extinction just 2000 years earlier. Numbers were brought from the low 100s to the thousands, one nobel huntsman having logged over 1000 cheetahs belonging to his estate alone.

 

Granted they're all inbred to beat hell and per natural selection should likely all be dead anyway (there's no real genetic differences between cheetahs in Africa anymore due to brother-sister and parent-child inbreeding being required to keep the species alive), but they're still around. And they're still here thanks in part to human intervention.

 

And while that's just one example, I just felt like throwing it out there.

 

On topic, I'm not a huge fan of people, but I don't see animals as more important. What's amazing about humans is the fact that our advanced mental processes allow us to be speciest against our own species! Amazing! I doubt any other animal sees its species as less worthy of survival or less important than its own. That in of itself colors the human ANIMAL as an incredible thing to me.

 

Given $1000, I'd split it 50/50. Because I love animals (especially avians), but I appreciate humans in need of assistance as well.

[Nine]

They've been used in the culture for years. To suddenly expect people not to use them, even uif it's only a placebo effect, would be like trying to tell Mexicans to stop putting cinnamon in their chocolate. It's been done for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

 

Which is why I support the farming of endangered animals so they can use bred stock instead of poach. Yes, yes, I know many endangered species are hard to breed in captivity, but when the alternative is poaching the wild population...

I honestly don't care at all if the medicines have been used for x amount of years; if it was possible to completely eradicate the trade of such items simultaneously, I'd totally support it regardless of the traditional/religious loss to the people. But I know that's logically impossible, so I support the methods of weaning the people off of their traditions, teaching the newer generations, and increasing the repercussions of buying and selling.

 

That's why I would disagree with animal farming for their parts. I don't think a viable solution is to continue giving the people what they want, regardless of how misinformed and ludicrous their beliefs are. Feeding that erroneous way of thinking can only mean hazardous repercussions in the future; I cannot fathom how many rhinos would have to be slaughtered to satisfy their desire for their horns. I don't think it would be remotely possible to keep up with demand, since Rhinos, gorillas, elephants, etc. have huge gestation periods in contrast to domesticated chickens, cows, pigs (not to mention longer growth and maturity rates). I just don't think such an idea is even feasible.

And with that comes the capitalizing of animal parts as a huge business (more than it is currently) and I wouldn't be surprised to see people continue poaching to cut out the middle man or to make huge profits themselves. Or just for fun, or for trophies.

 

In addition, breeding endangered animals for slaughter stock would require the destruction of more habitat for space, ironically destroying the chance for the animals to be re-released into the wild. Conservation of habitat and the extinction of ridiculous, debunked traditions are so very, very important if we want to see rhinos, elephants, gorillas, etc. outside of picture books and old documentaries.

 

About humans being the sole reason of certain species' survival-- I don't think there are too many examples to provide a strong enough comparison to others' decline (that sentence sounds really weird). Cheetahs and pandas are really the only two I can think of. Oh! And Red-tailed black sharks-- which totally are not sharks-- though human actions made them *extinct in the first place. I'm actually interested if anyone knows of others.

 

I admit I get kind of tired of the huge hype about Giant Pandas when there are many more seriously endangered animals that need help-- species that are hardier and would considerably have a much easier time being reintroduced. Kind of sad that very few people even know wtf a Kakapo is, or that there's a massive decline in amphibians worldwide =( But if the pandas get people more interested in conservation as a whole, then that's just ace.

 

*Don't know if they're extinct in the wild or still critically endangered. Correct me if I'm wrong =o

[Shizuma]

As much as a softie I sound, I honestly care more about animals.

Speak for those who can't speak, type of thing.

If I had $1k, I'd probably donate most of it to help endangered animals.

 

Don't feel like typing out and debating tonight on why I care more about them. c:

[ethasa]

i'm surprised that most people put humans under animals here, but most of them live in cushy towns and places where they really don't interact with animals besides the ones they pet and cuddle in zoos and their homes.

if people where really exposed to the wilderness and left there alone for a week or two, i'm sure their opinion would change.

the only real problem with humans is that they are animals, and thus, have the instinct to reproduce and thus, we finally get to the point where we are overpopulated.

another argument against animals being more important than people is the fact that natural selection has favored us, and since it did we naturally started having a higher population than other species, thus causing the other species to have lower populations by default, so overall all we did was what nature told us to do.

my final argument is nature, as in that it causes species to go extinct and causes other species to dominate. e.g. if we weren't the dominant species on this planet, something else would've been the dominant species on this planet.

 

[TikindiDragon]

On the "humans are overpopulated" argument....kindly take a look at the birth and mortality rates around the world. There's a negative population increase in advanced countries. It's the third world countries that have the most children because they're more likely to die.

Except people don't tend to stay in the countries they are born in. The UK should have negative growth if you look purely at birth/death rates here... yet our population is not only still growing, but still predicted to grow for many years to come.

[ChaosCorruptor]

Without humans, the animals would probably be dead from overpopulation or extinction. Both are needed

[7Deadly$ins]

Without humans, the animals would probably be dead from overpopulation or extinction. Both are needed

Not really. Natural selection works pretty well.

[JOTB]

Without humans, the animals would probably be dead from overpopulation or extinction.  Both are needed

Many natural mechanisms are in place to prevent animals from exceeding their environment's carrying capacity. Humans have just found means of circumventing them.

 

But we should reach that ceiling eventually.

Edited January 6, 2012 by JOTB

[thiefofhearts]

i'm surprised that most people put humans under animals here, but most of them live in cushy towns and places where they really don't interact with animals besides the ones they pet and cuddle in zoos and their homes.

if people where really exposed to the wilderness and left there alone for a week or two, i'm sure their opinion would change.

the only real problem with humans is that they are animals, and thus, have the instinct to reproduce and thus, we finally get to the point where we are overpopulated.

another argument against animals being more important than people is the fact that natural selection has favored us, and since it did we naturally started having a higher population than other species, thus causing the other species to have lower populations by default, so overall all we did was what nature told us to do.

my final argument is nature, as in that it causes species to go extinct and causes other species to dominate. e.g. if we weren't the dominant species on this planet, something else would've been the dominant species on this planet.

this. so hard.

 

then again i see youtube videos with the inane comments about how video taping a small kitten getting itself stuck in on top of a bookshelf then watching it cry for help is animal abuse.

 

palm meet face.

[Nine]

i'm surprised that most people put humans under animals here, but most of them live in cushy towns and places where they really don't interact with animals besides the ones they pet and cuddle in zoos and their homes.

if people where really exposed to the wilderness and left there alone for a week or two, i'm sure their opinion would change.

It's called a penchant for bias. A low class farmer in India is going to have widely differing opinions than a middle-class person living in U.S or Europe. He will not care about the destruction of the environment for his farm lands, the damage his herds are causing, or the impact his poisoning of Indian elephants has on their population. He cares for himself, his family, and little else and may very well do so for the rest of his life.

 

Those in a more comfortable living position have the luxury to focus on things from a global scale, the ability to gather information easily, and the ability to empathize with things and ideas beyond their personal world. By not having to focus too much on surviving each day, finding food, etc. it allows their minds to expand into concepts that may never come to those whose minds are focused on preservation of themselves. A person can come to the realization that, 'Hey, my species is but one of bajillions of other organisms, and our existence is completely irrelevant in comparison to the ecological importance of other animal species.'

 

While a difficult concept for many to accept, being able to ignore our unconscious bias for our species and consider that, 'Yes, animals are more important than humans' is indeed derived from lack of exposure and need to focus our minds entirely on survival. But it's not a bad thing, and has many other considering factors such as empathy and sympathy. It has even shown how deep and pliable human minds can be molded by experience alone... that even our inherent bias for our species can be forgone for global concerns. Why poisoning elephants is bad, clearing forests is damaging, and how domestic livestock is altering plant/animal growth. I find that extremely developed and unique to humans.

 

TL;DR: Run on sentences.

[Daydreamer09]

Those in a more comfortable living position have the luxury to focus on things from a global scale, the ability to gather information easily, and the ability to empathize with things and ideas beyond their personal world. By not having to focus too much on surviving each day, finding food, etc. it allows their minds to expand into concepts that may never come to those whose minds are focused on preservation of themselves. A person can come to the realization that, 'Hey, my species is but one of bajillions of other organisms, and our existence is completely irrelevant in comparison to the ecological importance of other animal species.'

 

While a difficult concept for many to accept, being able to ignore our unconscious bias for our species and consider that, 'Yes, animals are more important than humans' is indeed derived from lack of exposure and need to focus our minds entirely on survival. But it's not a bad thing, and has many other considering factors such as empathy and sympathy. It has even shown how deep and pliable human minds can be molded by experience alone... that even our inherent bias for our species can be forgone for global concerns. Why poisoning elephants is bad, clearing forests is damaging, and how domestic livestock is altering plant/animal growth. I find that extremely developed and unique to humans.

 

TL;DR: Run on sentences.

If this were so, explain to me the reasoning behind Al Gore preaching his Inconvenient Truth and yet still driving a hummer.

 

Why do you say we have an unconscious bias to our own species, and yet, it is nearly unanimous that people feel more affected by abandoned homeless puppies and kitties than orphans and poverty stricken people?

 

Living with less difficulties doesn't make people more sympathetic, it honestly makes them stupider. A few months ago, there was a mentally unstable man in part of Ohio who kept rare and exotic animals on his land. One day he released all the animals and then commited suicide.

 

Worried about the nearby population, police officers tried to tranquilize a few, but ultimately many of the animals were shot down. Jack Hanna, our patron saint of animals, drove non stop out of state to the site in hopes that he and his crew could do something. 6 animals were thankfully save out of over 20 40. (Could be better, yes, but, it's better than none)

 

Many people blamed the police for not tranquilizing these animals, despite the fact that at the time, they were simply unprepared. Even Jack Hanna had people who had not an inkling of what was going on pointing fingers at him.

 

Should the officers have just left the animals go until the more prepared animal experts arrived, despite the risk to human life? Simply because we are one in a baijillian species (who are mostly insects by the way)?

 

Story: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/w...-wrecking-.html

Edited January 8, 2012 by Daydreamer09