Are humans more important than animals?

[hazeh]

I think animal control and officers need to be prepared at all times, not just when it seems opportune. No one would expect that, but that's when the WORST things happen. But shooting down animals wasn't the right way to go. Especially since those animals were already living in that area, officers and control services needed to have something to fall back on IN CASE something happened.

[demonicvampiregirl]

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

As I live in Ohio and know of this as it was on the news when it happened, I'm still very upset that the police did this. My father certainly wasn't happy at all. They viewed it as a way to go hunting out of season and they did it. They didn't wait there was none. They saw a chance to shoot exotic animals and they took it. I don't believe they even saved any as when it was reported not a one was said to have been saved. I believe both are important but with some species in danger of going extinct people don't need to be harming them. Humans are going to kill themselves sooner or later anyway.

[Daydreamer09]

As I live in Ohio and know of this as it was on the news when it happened, I'm still very upset that the police did this. My father certainly wasn't happy at all. They viewed it as a way to go hunting out of season and they did it. They didn't wait there was none. They saw a chance to shoot exotic animals and they took it. I don't believe they even saved any as when it was reported not a one was said to have been saved. I believe both are important but with some species in danger of going extinct people don't need to be harming them. Humans are going to kill themselves sooner or later anyway.

Ahem, the cited article does state that 6 were saved. Maybe not... hm... see if I can find an article that specifically says so...

 

Authorities were able to transport six animals to the Columbus Zoo, a grizzly bear, three leopards and two monkeys.

-Source

 

I'm equally upset. I'm upset about how it happened, that it did happen and that it had to turn out the way it did. No one wants animals to die for no reason. But rather than blame the officers, I blame the lack of action by the officials responsible for looking into the mad man who caused this. He had several neighbors notify the authorities of animal abuse and neglect. Heck, he starved the animals before releasing them, further endangering the lives of people.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Daydreamer09

[demonicvampiregirl]

Ahem, the cited article does state that 6 were saved. Maybe not... hm... see if I can find an article that specifically says so...

 

I'm equally upset. I'm upset about how it happened, that it did happen and that it had to turn out the way it did. No one wants animals to die for no reason. But rather than blame the officers, I blame the lack of action by the officials responsible for looking into the mad man who caused this. He had several neighbors notify the authorities of animal abuse and neglect. Heck, he starved the animals before releasing them, further endangering the lives of people.

I was talking to my mom just a minute ago on this and she seemed to recall there was a few still left in the cages at that guys place. Granted it wasn't all the officials/polices fault but it doesn't make it any better on what they did.

Edited January 8, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[Nine]

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

I don't know, hypocrisy? I don't know Al Gore or why he drives a hummer, don't ask me.

 

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?

Bias for the survival of our species (and more specifically, ourselves) is something every species inherently has in one way or another.

 

I don't believe more people are affected by kittens than orphans; there have been many individuals in this thread who have stated their choosing of human plight over a different animal. By saying it's unanimous, you're exaggerating quite a bit =P I'm even willing to bet a vast majority of the population would donate their money to children rather than shelters. My personal assumption would be around 95%, maybe more but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to people who may disagree but choose not to say anything for fear of being chastised for not picking the orphans.

 

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.

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man =o

 

Yes, that is one case of a man's error causing the death of many animals, and so too are the people who feed bears at parks thinking that they are helping. Negligence, lack of awareness, poor decision making, lack of education, misguided actions, peer pressure, carelessness... all those and more can contribute to poor decisions regarding animals, but I do not think the ability to sympathize with animals outside our species is the driving point.

 

I'm not completely sure of the point you were trying to make... it's true that some people's obsession with animals can lead to the destruction of the very creatures they cherish. One on one with a bear, your instincts to survive will kick in and you will have no issue with 'kill or be killed'. That's your bias.

A guy watching the story on TV could be thinking, "That type of bear is critically endangered; the man was stupid, trespassing, criminal, a poacher... I would've preferred the bear surviving." Guy has no bias like the man with the bear did, so he is free to compare to two side by side and conclude that yes, the critically endangered bear is more important than the human being. Emotionally you may disagree, but biologically, statistically the bear was more important. That's what I'm saying, lack of experience or emotional investment (bias) gives people a more neutral way to approach things.

[Daydreamer09]

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man =o

 

Yeah, I know it's my opinion. Simply stated it, and I don't expect you or others to agree. I never asked you to anyway.

 

"By saying it's unanimous, you're exaggerating quite a bit " Is based off of the observation that many people have point blank said, "I would rather die than a lion/tiger/bear" which might be an exaggeration. Also the statement, "They can't protect themselves, unlike humans" might as well be. All I hear on this forum sometimes is "humans are the fault of everything". (Makes me depressed to hear people say)

 

I'm more apt to say there's a 50:50 ratio than a majority who prefer donating to humans.

I doubt there's an official poll around to cite for that sort of argument... So, it's pointless to pursue.

 

----

People who take action upon their sympathy and respect for animals by living through obstacles and without those necessities that we take for granted today are much smarter than the opposite. Difficulties are what we learn and grow from. So saying that less means more makes no sense to me.

 

Romans and Greeks had more difficulties living then we have, and yet, they had time to ponder the world and build on philosophy. Sympathizing with animals is not based on whether we have more free time to think or lack of experience. It's how we relate to them and what we learn.

 

"...I would have preferred the bear surviving" Is technically no more less bias than thinking and saying the reverse. As bias is based on feelings, personal views and prejudice, you judge the man should die because you value his life less than that of the bear's based on population. If you ask me, having non bias and true neutrality would be a simple "I don't care who lives or dies."

 

You argue that people should value animals over humans because there are less of them and more of us. From a biological standpoint, if we are speaking bear vs. man, doesn't that also mean mammal vs. mammal and animal vs. animal? So then, aren't both on equal terms? Statistically in that view point it would be x=x.

 

-----

 

My feelings about the event mentioned; Some of the people who are angry over the officers don't have that emotional investment. They weren't there on scene when it happened, so they have only the feeling "These animals were powerless, rare and endangered. That was wrong." Despite the fact the animals were also dangerous.

 

I personally have no idea how I would have reacted in the situation of the police officers, so how can I chastise someone for those actions when I may have done the very same thing?

[Nine]

Yeah, I know it's my opinion. Simply stated it, and I don't expect you or others to agree. I never asked you to anyway.

Lol, it was a joke. It's an internet meme styled phrase, like cool story bro.

 

People who take action upon their sympathy and respect for animals by living through obstacles and without those necessities that we take for granted today are much smarter than the opposite. Difficulties are what we learn and grow from. So saying that less means more makes no sense to me.

 

Romans and Greeks had more difficulties living then we have, and yet, they had time to ponder the world and build on philosophy. Sympathizing with animals is not based on whether we have more free time to think or lack of experience. It's how we relate to them and what we learn.

 

I was stating the difference in valuing importance is dictated on personal experience and some other factors (ex. media, upbringing, religion), not that those who experience less difficulties in life are somehow smarter than those who do. Maybe "bias" isn't the most correct word to use by definition, but I think people can glean what I mean in context.

 

Ex. A person cannot be on a jury regarding the death penalty if they are against it, because they are inherently bias and will vote against it regardless. They have bias against death penalty. They need people who are open to the idea of death penalty. Just as well they don't willingly allow family members of the victim to be part of the jury, because they too are bias.

 

Complete neutrality is nearly impossible, but on the bear example I was using the example for biological importance. The man had no connection to bear or human and decided that he preferred the bear to live because it had more 'biological importance'. The man's death would not negatively affect the environment or the stability of his species as much as the endangered bear's would. This is all completely theoretical, made-up ,and of course there are plenty of other factors to take in, but it's just a very basic example of how looking at things with attempted neutrality is nothing to be chastised about. The guy was in favor of the bear not because he favored it, but because he considered the biological, future impact of both species and concluded that the loss of one endangered bear was more damaging to the environment and survival of the species than one man. We could substitute a worker ant with the human and the result would be the same. One dead worker ant =/= one dead endangered bear.

 

I feel this is getting way too close to the philosophical dissection of what inherent bias is and isn't. That and I'm kind of repeating the same examples, just in longer sentences.

 

You argue that people should value animals over humans because there are less of them and more of us. From a biological standpoint, if we are speaking bear vs. man, doesn't that also mean mammal vs. mammal and animal vs. animal? So then, aren't both on equal terms? Statistically in that view point it would be x=x.

I'm not sure if that 'you' was used as a very in-general term, or if you are in fact referring to me specifically =o I don't believed I have ever revealed my own opinion, strange as that is. I just enjoy the topic of neutrality and unconscious bias, and how some of the most controversial ideas are actually biologically sensible and logical. Like how diseases are necessary and eradicating them is bad in the long run, that's an idea that really doesn't sit well with people. They are radically different ideas that many people may not be used to, but the concepts themselves are not radical, if that makes any sense.

[linkx7]

humans are much more important and i think that cause well i am one

[Hippo_Knives]

I think that humans are JUST as important as animals, and if this girl feels that she should donate to tigers instead of people, she should.

On a side note I think that humans are entitled to a "manifesto destiny" of sorts. As in we are top of the food chain, and thus have a higher priority on the "natural side" of life. I use manifesto destiny to describe it because I think it can be used to describe an inheritance that you receive for just being there, or existing where you do.

 

Edit: I do believe in a natural order that has a major, yet subtle influence on everything

Edited February 1, 2012 by Hippo_Knives

[KiraKina]

gotta go animals.

[Misty119]

From my personal point of view, I have an aversion to humans, so I much prefer animals. However if the person/people in question are suffering I'll probably care more about them.

 

But animals of any kind take precendence over non-suffering people in my view.

 

But one is not more important than the other because everything is dependant on something else to live, so there isn't a way to define which one is more important.

 

When it comes down to charities it'd be either half and half or with 2/3 of the money heading to an animal charity.

why would animals need humans? heh, we (not all of us) cause most of the suffering to the animal kingdom, abuse, neglect, destroying habitats, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RosePaladin]

In my opinion, both humans and animals are needed. In my case, I would rather donate to animals than humans. Animals have emotions and a mind, but they just can't do some things us humans can do. Why let them suffer? Humans were created to protect the animals and take care of them, not destroy them. I'm not all about saying that humans aren't needed and the world would be better without us, though. We're just as needed as the animals, but considering how many animals of some specific species are left, I just think it would be better to help the animals.

[TikindiDragon]

why would animals need humans? heh, we (not all of us) cause most of the suffering to the animal kingdom, abuse, neglect, destroying habitats, etc. 

Actualy, as it happens, there are several species now almost entirely dependant on humans for their continued survival.

Edited February 2, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[ShadoWolf800]

Actualy, as it happens, there are several species now almost entirely dependant on humans for their continued survival.

But is it because we made it that way because of our activities?

 

Its hard to have a middle ground on this, accepting our faults and fixing them without being "misanthropic" about it. It should go without saying that if you make a mess, you should be thoughtful enough to clean it up. We were ignorant to the scope of the problem until a few decades ago, so there's no shame in wanting to do better than we did before.

[emeraldbunni]

i think that humans are more important than animals, cuz without humans most animals would die. i mean look at all the domesticated animals! without proper care and treatment there is no way they could suddenly adapt to a world without humans. and as for animals to humans, some animals would start to overpopulate. for example stray cats and dogs would run around having children and the world would be over run with cats and dogs. and when they have to eat the prey of these animals would be hunted severely. which might change the food pyramid causing damage and stuff. so yeah humans are more important

[grimace]

i think that humans are more important than animals, cuz without humans most animals would die. i mean look at all the domesticated animals! without proper care and treatment there is no way they could suddenly adapt to a world without humans. and as for animals to humans, some animals would start to overpopulate. for example stray cats and dogs would run around having children and the world would be over run with cats and dogs. and when they have to eat the prey of these animals would be hunted severely. which might change the food pyramid causing damage and stuff. so yeah humans are more important

It doesn't work like that. 99.9% of all animals would be far better off without people. Sure there are some domesticated things, and critically endangered species that need people (Many domestic animals can live in the wild fine anyway though), but as a whole, animals absolutely do not need people.

[Frayta]

Animals, definitely.

 

I wont make the argument that they are more important then humans, because well, humans are animals too.

 

I think for the great part, mankind has cast himself out and alienated itself from his fellow animal-kin.

 

Not to say, animals do not fight over territory, or resources, because they do. But a great part of the danger animals are in, is due to the actions of mankind, and so are the problems mankind himself is plagued with.

 

It is easier for me to help those who can find a lasting peace, I can actually see the good I do when I volunteer for wildlife foundations, there's actually a goal there, something achievable. But with man, I just don't know. Until we can end what brings man so low, there is no saving him.

[7Deadly$ins]

Animals, definitely.

 

I wont make the argument that they are more important then humans, because well, humans are animals too.

 

I think for the great part, mankind has cast himself out and alienated itself from his fellow animal-kin.

 

Not to say, animals do not fight over territory, or resources, because they do. But a great part of the danger animals are in, is due to the actions of mankind, and so are the problems mankind himself is plagued with.

 

It is easier for me to help those who can find a lasting peace, I can actually see the good I do when I volunteer for wildlife foundations, there's actually a goal there, something achievable. But with man, I just don't know. Until we can end what brings man so low, there is no saving him.

If you can't find goals in human society, you aren't looking nearly hard enough.

[kaagia]

Humans are woth nothing, in my opinion. All they talk about is how high and mighty they are, being so highly evolved and stuff.

Seriously, which animal is so stupid as to deliberately destroy it's own environment, clearly aware of the fact that there is no way to restore it ever again? Which being is so incredibly selfish as to let billions of life forms go down with them, just because they screwed up majorly and can't admit their mistakes, and worst of all, they keep doing the same mistakes again and again? As if something what went horribly wrong before would be working the next time... Or the time after that...

 

All humans can do is destroy. Whatever they do to 'protect nature', whenever a tree gets planted in some rainforest, a yard is getting torn down somewhere else. Humankind said they want to change that, 'go green'. That was years ago, and there hasn't been the slightest improvement. We're never going to change, no matter what, and all I can hope for is that humankind will never be able to reach another habitable planet, to start their reign of mindless and needless destruction again.

[Princess Artemis]

Humankind said they want to change that, 'go green'. That was years ago, and there hasn't been the slightest improvement.

Where I grew up, there was a mountain nearby that was almost perpetually impossible to see through all the particulates in the air. Granted, the area was known to be quite misty at the best of times, so even in a natural state, the horizon was never crystal clear, but this was much worse than that. When I left, it was marginally better. Now, a good couple of decades after I left, one can see that mountain from town more often than not. The area doesn't smell as bad as it used to.

 

There has been improvement. It's gradual so people who don't wish to see it can pretend it doesn't happen if they want to, but is there.

[Dragon_Arbock]

Humans are woth nothing, in my opinion. All they talk about is how high and mighty they are, being so highly evolved and stuff.

Seriously, which animal is so stupid as to deliberately destroy it's own environment, clearly aware of the fact that there is no way to restore it ever again? Which being is so incredibly selfish as to let billions of life forms go down with them, just because they screwed up majorly and can't admit their mistakes, and worst of all, they keep doing the same mistakes again and again? As if something what went horribly wrong before would be working the next time... Or the time after that...

 

All humans can do is destroy. Whatever they do to 'protect nature', whenever a tree gets planted in some rainforest, a yard is getting torn down somewhere else. Humankind said they want to change that, 'go green'. That was years ago, and there hasn't been the slightest improvement. We're never going to change, no matter what, and all I can hope for is that humankind will never be able to reach another habitable planet, to start their reign of mindless and needless destruction again.

I fully agree. Humans create many of their own problems by warring over objects that only have value because they say so (money, gemstones, etc). They have no respect for other lifeforms, let alone their own kind, killing for spite and sport.

[kaagia]

Where I grew up, there was a mountain nearby that was almost perpetually impossible to see through all the particulates in the air.  Granted, the area was known to be quite misty at the best of times, so even in a natural state, the horizon was never crystal clear, but this was much worse than that.  When I left, it was marginally better.  Now, a good couple of decades after I left, one can see that mountain from town more often than not.  The area doesn't smell as bad as it used to.

 

There has been improvement.  It's gradual so people who don't wish to see it can pretend it doesn't happen if they want to, but is there.

 

That might very well be possible, but it surely didn't take decades to pollute the air to that extent.

There wouldn't be any need for improvement, if humans, the 'crown of the evolution', would have decided to live with nature instead of against it when they first realised that they're effectively destroying the whole environment. We had our chance, and we completely blew it. Now it's too late.

 

The only way for this planet to have any chance of recovery is when humankind is finally gone for good.

[Princess Artemis]

That might very well be possible, but it surely didn't take decades to pollute the air to that extent.

Yes, actually, it did!

 

There are stories like that all over the world, where industrialization polluted a place and efforts have been made and have succeeded to clean it up.

 

So it's not true that there hasn't been the "slightest improvement". There has been. It's noticeable.

 

It may not be as much as some would like, but it has happened. Take it into account.

[Kestra15]

It is easier for me to help those who can find a lasting peace, I can actually see the good I do when I volunteer for wildlife foundations, there's actually a goal there, something achievable. But with man, I just don't know. Until we can end what brings man so low, there is no saving him.

I dunno, there is something intensely gratifying about saving a human life, even if I do end up coated in blood from time to time.

[skimboard808]

I think animal life is just as important as human life, and who are we to say which life has no value or is more important than another. People who say animal's lives aren't as important as human's only say it so that they can justify the abuse and exploitation of animals. The same things were said about blacks and native americans so that their treatment and subjugation could be justified.

 

Humans are to blame for the vast majority of the problems today, look at the horrible acts we commit against our own kind, and now we are decimating the environment and undermining all other forms of life, since we consider ourselves so superior, it's arrogant, cruel, and wrong.