Are humans more important than animals?

[polos1993]

If we all look at it. Pray animals like rabbits, deer, and other animals that we like to call pests that only eats plant life are there to maintain the plaint life growing. Thin about what would happen if all the pray animals were gone. All of the grass would go all over the place and maybe more forests and stuff. More poisoness things would be around for the humans to deal with. With an over population of the pests it goes the opposite way. The tigers you have used as an example helps the plant life from going over the bin and the animals destroy the habitat. To me humans have done enough damage. Time for us to sit back and let nature run wild.

 

Okay here is an example of a natural thing that NEEDS to happen. Like forest fires. Did you know that there is a lot of brush that needs to be burned to keep the sticks and leaves decomposed? Did you know since we've be doing fire fighting and all of that stuff to NATURAL forest fires those forest are more of a death trap?

[MellaBella]

I don't see humans or animals more important than the other, really. If I had to donate to a charity for animals or a charity for humans, I would probably donate to both around equally.

 

But to tell you the truth, I would much rather look over the horizon and see trees and grassy hills than.. industrialization. I hate going to cities and seeing nothing but houses piled on top of each other and towering buildings over my head and not the sky. I hate seeing smoke producing factories and pollution in the water and on the ground. I want to see nature, not nastiness.

 

Then again, that might just all be bias, being from a small town in a rural area and all. But.. yeah.

[Eatcheddar]

Humans are MMUUCCHH more important. Humans have souls, not tigers or any other animal. I know many will prolly disagree with this.

But humans were created in God's image.

God gave man the dominion mandate, which has given us rule over animals.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Eatcheddar

[Stripey]

My opinion, for what little it is worth, is that humans are animals, just ones who have managed to build loads of visible stuff out of many types of materials. So asking me if humans are more important than animals isn't something I can answer either way.

[BirdSpirit]

Humans are animals. We specialize in our own little evolutionary area aka the brain. Doesn't make us better than anything else though. Other animals have their own areas that greatly excel ours.

 

Just like to toss this in: If humans are the same as animals, then why isn't experimenting on humans allowed?

[Lythiaren]

 

Humans are MMUUCCHH more important. Humans have souls, not tigers or any other animal. I know many will prolly disagree with this.

But humans were created in God's image.

God gave man the dominion mandate, which has given us rule over animals.

I'd argue that there are quite a few soulless humans out there (eg. serial murderers), and many animals that probably have souls (eg. that one stray dog who found an abandoned litter of puppies and started to care for them, even producing milk so they could nurse). Can you prove that my beloved family pet has no soul? Your argument is purely religious, but I can make a religious counterargument in that animals are reincarnations of past humans, as written in Buddhist scripture (which is why they don't eat meat; that duck could've been your uncle!).

Edited February 6, 2012 by Lythiaren

[UltimateCreation1091]

i dont know i think animal but then again humans??

[soullesshuman]

Just like to toss this in: If humans are the same as animals, then why isn't experimenting on humans allowed?

It is. Ever heard of a 'new revolutionary drug' that is still 'undergoing trial tests'? They're testing it on people.

[BirdSpirit]

It is. Ever heard of a 'new revolutionary drug' that is still 'undergoing trial tests'? They're testing it on people.

True, but we're not allowed to do to people the same thing we are to animals. We breed special rats that we experiment on and cut their heads off to take out their brains. I'm wondering what makes humans so special that we can't do the same thing.

[Lythiaren]

True, but we're not allowed to do to people the same thing we are to animals. We breed special rats that we experiment on and cut their heads off to take out their brains. I'm wondering what makes humans so special that we can't do the same thing.

Simplest explanation is that while we're possessed of infinite curiosity, we've also evolved an aversion to causing perceived harm to our own kind, on many levels. Which is why experimenting on people requires consent; how does a human communicate to a lab rat that they intend to remove part of his brain to see what happens? And even if we could, how would that rat communicate his answer?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Lythiaren

[BlackStar159]

True, but we're not allowed to do to people the same thing we are to animals. We breed special rats that we experiment on and cut their heads off to take out their brains. I'm wondering what makes humans so special that we can't do the same thing.

Because first, we see ourselves as superior (as you can see by some of the comments here) to animals and therefore we can do whatever the heck we want with animals, with only a few animal lovers weakly complaining.

Second, we have something we like to call ethics that we all want to break but are dissuaded by society to do so.

Third, from a practical standpoint, it is way faster to raise rats and flies and such than a human.

 

 

Humans are the bane of the earth and nothing else, without us, the world would be a much better place, screw humans, we need to go extinct. The only problem with that is the most likely method of us going extinct is nuclear annihilation, which will effectively wipe out everything else, except cockroaches ofc.

[Carnivorous M.]

On the one hand, I feel that people are very important.

 

People can create art and music. People have empathy with and the need to help others. People can comprehend the world around them and share it with everyone else. People can create stories and pass them on for hundreds of years; and, failing that, write things down so that people who are alive hundreds and thousands of years after them can read what they wrote.

 

People can understand and unravel wounded minds and wounded bodies and bring them healing. We can tap into the wonders of the world and its physics and everything that makes it up, and create amazing, wonderful, marvelous things that would never have been thought possible. Whatever you believe as far as religion goes, people are an incredible, beautiful, amazing, wondrous thing that, in the known universe, has never happened before and will very likely never happen again.

 

On the other hand, I feel that people as a whole squander their potential, and turn it to the bad.

 

People can destroy art, can destroy books and memories of lives that have been written down and will be forgotten forever as a result. People can see other people in pain and laugh, or dismiss it as someone else's problem.

 

People can cause anguish to and tear apart the lives of others, can utterly break someone else's mind for the joy of it, or because they couldn't be bothered to raise them properly, or help them, or listen to them. People can create absolute marvels, and then use them to destroy en masse the marvels that they can't replace. People abuse and torture and rape and kill and fight wars, and then they can turn right around and try to justify it. People have minds that are very deep, and the darkness and sickness and wrongness in them is just as deep.

 

People are perfectly capable of taking care of their planet and everything on it, and many are doing their best, but so many more just don't care, or don't know. It's not the fault of an animal that it's hunted and skinned, and it's not the fault of a child that it's born the fifteenth of a poor family who won't take care of them properly and may even throw them out into the street.

 

The world is a wonderful, wonderful place, and simultaneously it is a horrible, horrible place. The best anyone can do is to maximize the wonderful and minimize the horrible to the best of their ability. That's the code I live by, moreso than I live by my religion.

 

All that said, it pisses me off to no end when people try to go 'Oh, the world totally isn't overpopulated! If it was, there wouldn't be big empty spaces in Montana!' There are a few factors at play there, like, oh, how many children are expected of a family by culture, how widely available birth control and sex ed are, and how much of the land in a certain area is livable, to name a few. For God's sake, people, research before you spout off slogans.

 

Personally, I think that both people and animals are extremely important, and there just aren't enough resources/people who aren't freaking idiots to go around for them all. I would donate evenly, I think, but I would also research to make sure that the organization has a good reputation. There are too many charities out there that are either dishonest or just plain ain't got their crap together.

 

EDIT: I agree with the idea that someone should be allowed to have only two children right off the bat, and then after that they should have an investigation done every time they have another child. The only exception would be if they're adopting a child in need, in which case they're already going to be going through a crapton of approval and investigation. I am personally absolutely terrified of childbirth, so I am definitely going to adopt my kids. At least until I get over it.

 

18/19/Whatever Kids and Counting makes me so, so, so angry. Even if it wasn't irresponsible overpopulation-wise, there is no way that you can raise twenty children and give them all a meaningful, psychologically healthy growing-up with a proper parent-figure; at best, they'll have a few of their big brothers and sisters as role models, but they will never, ever be close to their parents, which seems to be what said parents want. And that's without them all growing up with camera crews in their faces all the time, all of their names starting with the same letter for a freaking gimmick, or being 'individualized' by being paired off with a sibling who is the same age as them and looks just like them. It's all just so incredibly sickening and dehumanizing and it showcases the worst reality TV has to offer and I keep thinking what a horrible life all of those children are going to have, and my mom is all like 'Yay 18 Kids and Counting! 8D' Imagine growing up as a gimmick. Imagine being born as a gimmick, and growing up with that fact constantly smeared into your face. As if all of that's not bad enough, having that many babies spaced over that little time is insanely unhealthy, and they're not going to have a mom for very much longer. Then again, the younger ones will probably barely even care, for aforementioned reasons.

 

I'm sorry, I know this is the Humans or Animals Thread. That show just pushes all of my buttons as a person who comes from a family of five and knows how much it can hurt to have your parents' attention divided that many ways alone (not to mention a person who can't stand reality TV and routinely has to watch it anyway).

Edited February 6, 2012 by Carnivorous M.

[BlackStar159]

On the one hand, I feel that people are very important.

 

People can create art and music. People have empathy with and the need to help others. People can comprehend the world around them and share it with everyone else. People can create stories and pass them on for hundreds of years; and, failing that, write things down so that people who are alive hundreds and thousands of years after them can read what they wrote.

 

People can understand and unravel wounded minds and wounded bodies and bring them healing. We can tap into the wonders of the world and its physics and everything that makes it up, and create amazing, wonderful, marvelous things that would never have been thought possible. Whatever you believe as far as religion goes, people are an incredible, beautiful, amazing, wondrous thing that, in the known universe, has never happened before and will very likely never happen again.

 

Then again do those things REALLY matter? if humans did not exist and those things did not exist, would it have made ANY impact on the world?

Of course not.

 

On the other hand, I feel that people as a whole squander their potential, and turn it to the bad.

Most of the time people do the bad things you mention

 

People are perfectly capable of taking care of their planet and everything on it

no we cannot, the human race is too self centered and selfish to take care of this planet. thousands of years of humanity has proven this.

 

The world is a wonderful, wonderful place, and simultaneously it is a horrible, horrible place.

 

Humans make it a horrible place

 

All that said, it pisses me off to no end when people try to go 'Oh, the world totally isn't overpopulated! If it was, there wouldn't be big empty spaces in Montana!'

 

Whoever says that is a blithering idiot.

[Carnivorous M.]

Thanks for bringing those things up, BlackStar; it's always good to clarify, and I suppose there were a few areas where I didn't really do that. I'll answer you point by point, more or less.

 

I forgot to mention: the previous textwall comes from the point of view that there is more to life and the universe than just the scientific side of things. There are people who believe otherwise, and I'm not trying to down them.

 

Personally, I believe that things like art and understanding and caring are some of the most important things in the universe, because without that, what is life? Just hunting, eating, sleeping, reproducing. To me, just surviving is no real life at all.

 

Animals are also an incredibly precious thing, and they don't deserve to be driven into extinction, but in the wild, in a world where there is no love or understanding, they don't feel love or understanding much at all. A mother might care for her offspring, and a few species mate for life, or the very, very occasional animal like dogs or otters that are naturally friendly and playful and secure enough to have bonds with and trust other animals, but all wild animals live on the edge of death, with or without the help of humans. They can't really develop emotion, because they have to find food and the ones they might trust or understand are rivals and very well might rip their throats out.

 

It's usually when animals are around humans, good, smart, responsible humans, or animals that have been around said humans, that they develop emotions and bonds and as much understanding as they can have. Animals are no less for it, and it doesn't mean they deserve death or abuse, but humans embody and bring about one of the most unique, precious things in the world-- in the known universe. Life and the universe, to me, are not worth living without these things.

 

If you remove emotions and understanding from the equation of Things That Are Important, why not go ahead and remove All Life As We Know It? How important are these things to existence? Humans as a whole are the one species to widely experience emotion and understanding, but then again Earth as a whole is the only planet in this solar system, very possibly this galaxy or this entire universe, to have life at all.

 

I agree, people almost always squander their potential and do awful things and make the world a horrible place. There is no denying that at all. However, they also do just as many amazing things, things that are so self-sacrificing and altruistic and mind-blowing; the thing is, the bad things have more immediate, visible effect, and they are something that needs to be dealt with instead of marveled at, so they are talked about and shown and discussed more.

 

Humans aren't the only ones who make the world a horrible place. Many, many animals eat their young, and other animals' young. Animal species can and do extinct each other. Billions of animals die brutal, painful, bloody, cruel and unusual deaths, starving, afraid, alone, every single day. They rip each other apart and digest each other alive, they poison and maim. They rape each other, which can be very damaging physically even if they don't have any other problems with it (and many species do; mating rituals and all). There are even animals, such as dolphins, that kill and rape other species and each other for fun.

 

At the same time, nature is undeniably full of countless wonders and beauties, and there does exist self-sacrifice and love. However, species that can communicate and understand and spread these emotions are extremely rare. Dolphins are some of the most horrible animals that exist because they do horrible things for fun, but at the same time they are also one of the most intelligent and caring species there are; in fact, they're a lot like humans in that some of them save other animals floating in the water and near death, and some of them murder each other's calves. They are another species that I highly support and think are, in the long run, the most worth keeping around. Heck, if parrots or dolphins or whatever started a society that brings emotion and understanding to other species on the scale that humans do, they'd go right up to the top of my list alongside humans, and then I'd have a great deal more trouble choosing which of the two to save.

 

Everything in the world, in the universe, has a side that is unthinkably abominable and horrible, and a side that is unthinkably beautiful and precious. We tend to focus more on the bad things humans do because it's what we understand the best, being humans ourselves and knowing how we think. We are capable of the blackest depths of cruelty and apathy and destruction, and minus the active cruelty, so is everything else in the universe. However, humans (and hey, dolphins if they ever advance that far) are something that has the ability to make themselves better, even if they almost always waste it.

 

What I cling to is the idea that humans are entirely capable of waking up, realizing that they're doing it wrong, and doing their best to be the best they can be, and educating others to be the best that they can be, and so on. Because the majority of us don't, however, it doesn't happen, and the world slowly turns into a crapsack. But think for a second: back in the day, people were all complete idiots as we see them. They burned witches, wiped their arses with books, lived in filth, killed everything around them because they damn well felt like it. Nowadays, there are still parts of the world that are like that, but now we have things like medicine and tolerance and religious freedom and law that does not boil down to 'Follow the leader's whims,' all of them spreading across the globe and improving conditions as they go. The problem is, the potential for getting better is growing at the same time that the potential for getting worse is, and 'worse' is winning.

 

I believe in doing your best to be the best you can be, do what you know is right, and educating yourself in any way you can, because betterness does not come without knowledge. If one lives by this code of conduct, and is truly following it, they are making the world a better place a little bit at a time, and spreading that philosophy with them everywhere they go. In my opinion, it certainly helps matters more than just sinking into apathy and saying 'Whatever, everything is just too screwed up to bother.'

 

And, finally, I agree with the last statement resoundingly. Living in my particular area of Texas can really grate on anyone with half a brain who hasn't had it washed repeatedly since birth, let me tell you.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Carnivorous M.

[MellaBella]

no we cannot, the human race is too self centered and selfish to take care of this planet. thousands of years of humanity has proven this.

 

 

 

Humans make it a horrible place

I think you are generalizing a bit too much here. There are MANY humans who care and also try to take care of the planet. A larger portion than you might think.

 

And humans ARE getting better about making technology more environmentally friendly. Cleaning products, cars.. even using less plastic to make things with. If humans didn't care, these wouldn't exist. Yes, if humans didn't exist then I guess this wouldn't be a problem, but hey, kinda can't fix that, can we? Not unless you want to commit mass genocide against all humans on Earth.

[SandstormL]

I'm not even going to READ this thread because I don't even want to risk seeing all the entirely bias opinions that are probably in here against other species because it would make me seriously mad and flare me up horribly, but I'm just going to pop in here to say this incase no one else has pointed it out:

 

Humans ARE animals.

 

They are a different species, just like a dog is a different species, and a cat is a different species, etc. People often forget this and think humans are above animals, when they aren't, they ARE animals too.

 

I will not be returning to this thread.

 

And I agree with every single person that thinks the bad humans (not the good ones) make this earth miserable, there are far too many of them around.

 

 

[Carnivorous M.]

I'm not even going to READ this thread because I don't even want to risk seeing all the entirely bias opinions that are probably in here against other species because it would make me seriously mad and flare me up horribly, but I'm just going to pop in here to say this incase no one else has pointed it out:

 

So... tl;dr meets pre-emptive ragequit? :/

 

Humans ARE animals.

 

They are a different species, just like a dog is a different species, and a cat is a different species, etc. People often forget this and think humans are above animals, when they aren't, they ARE animals too.

 

I don't know about everyone else's opinions on the subject yet, because I'm still reading back through the 30+ pages of this thread, but the distinction between humans and animals is primarily used for clarity here.

 

Also, I would say that in many ways humans are above animals, yes. Both humans and animals create amazing things; the difference is that the vast majority of the amazing things that animals do boils down to instinct, whereas humans look at their environments and turn their brain towards ideas that they were not born with, which I would say is the definition of technology. The technology that we observe in other species is very, very primitive, as in bowerbird nests and monkeys hunting with sticks. This, and the fact that animals do things that transmit diseases and are harmful to them and that wouldn't necessarily be too hard to fix if they were putting rational thought into it, is my main evidence that animals don't secretly have complex science that they're just hiding from us or that we don't understand.

 

There are some species that are exceptionally intelligent, and as stated much earlier in the thread there are animals that one can carry a legitimate conversation with, and those are among the species that I would put the most into supporting, but nothing has come near the level of humans yet.

 

At the same time, there are definitely ecological systems to be considered. Art and understanding and things of that nature are extremely important and, to me, not worth living without, but there are things that are not necessarily enjoyable or appreciated that, sooner or later down the food chain, one can't really live without.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Carnivorous M.

[Deus_Suetonius]

i agree with you OP Regardless of how overpopulated the planet is (which it isnt, we still have land for people) its our duty as humans to protect those that cant protect themselves. that starts with our own species first.

[Fuzzbucket]

Humans are the bane of the earth and nothing else, without us, the world would be a much better place, screw humans, we need to go extinct. The only problem with that is the most likely method of us going extinct is nuclear annihilation, which will effectively wipe out everything else, except cockroaches ofc.

I am reminded of David Attenborough, interviewed on the radio a few years ago, being asked about all the things that were happening on earth, answering very knowledgeably about planetary self-correction and the rest

 

At the end, the interviewer said "Oh great - so then, the human race will survive ?" and there was a sort of stunned silence for a sec - and then Attenborough said "Humans ? I thought we were talking about the planet. The human race hasn't a prayer in hell."

[Nine]

I am reminded of David Attenborough, interviewed on the radio a few years ago, being asked about all the things that were happening on earth, answering very knowledgeably about planetary self-correction and the rest

 

At the end, the interviewer said "Oh great - so then, the human race will survive ?" and there was a sort of stunned silence for a sec - and then Attenborough said "Humans ? I thought we were talking about the planet. The human race hasn't a prayer in hell."

Lol, I love Attenborough. I remember an interview when he was asked about the idea of creationism and his response was so calm, collected, and knowledgeable, it was literally impossible to make a counter argument. The guy's a legend...

 

Getting back to the main topic, I have to disagree with nuclear disaster being the only viable method of human extinction. It's true that it would have an irreversible effect, but I've always felt that a "super" disease or virus were much more likely. Nature strives for balance and sickness is a very important factor in population control and environmental upkeep; things like MRSA look to me like an early warning sign =o

[RWyvern]

Sure,it may not be pleasant to individul humans,but animals have the same feelings as us. Children dying is natural. Only one third of insect eggs survive to hatch,and only a quarter of those make it to adulthood. We steal homes and food from animals,and when they come to try and take back some,we kill them when they didn't know they were doing harm (yes,this applies for rats and mice too) How would you like it if some giant stole all your homes and belongings,and then poisoned you in the most horrible manner? Humans are overpopulating the Earth,and the Earth has no actual need for us. But animals support the whole ecosystem. So I'd much rather donate for animals rather than people. Thousands of animals get killed just because of us.

[BlackStar159]

I find this to be a great discussion Carnivorous

 

I forgot to mention: the previous textwall comes from the point of view that there is more to life and the universe than just the scientific side of things. There are people who believe otherwise, and I'm not trying to down them.

Personally, I believe that things like art and understanding and caring are some of the most important things in the universe, because without that, what is life? Just hunting, eating, sleeping, reproducing. To me, just surviving is no real life at all.

I agree completely that we have to have things like art and caring and wonder about the world, I am just stating that that is like an addition towards humanity and that if we did not exist, and therefore such art and contemplations did not exist the world would most likely not be worse off.

Animals are also an incredibly precious thing, and they don't deserve to be driven into extinction, but in the wild, in a world where there is no love or understanding, they don't feel love or understanding much at all. A mother might care for her offspring, and a few species mate for life, or the very, very occasional animal like dogs or otters that are naturally friendly and playful and secure enough to have bonds with and trust other animals, but all wild animals live on the edge of death, with or without the help of humans. They can't really develop emotion, because they have to find food and the ones they might trust or understand are rivals and very well might rip their throats out.

It's usually when animals are around humans, good, smart, responsible humans, or animals that have been around said humans, that they develop emotions and bonds and as much understanding as they can have. Animals are no less for it, and it doesn't mean they deserve death or abuse, but humans embody and bring about one of the most unique, precious things in the world-- in the known universe. Life and the universe, to me, are not worth living without these things.

Then again, those animals that you say are around humans are already "naturally friendly" ie. dogs, and therefore kind of invalidates that part of your point. And the only time that other animals are around humans are in zoos where we go an gawk at them, and watch them for our own entertainment, not very loving I think.

Also, neither you nor I nor anyone else can say what animals really think and therefore making the conjecture that they can't develop emotions or don't care may not be accurate, although I like to think that animals have a lot more intelligence than we give them credit for.

If you remove emotions and understanding from the equation of Things That Are Important, why not go ahead and remove All Life As We Know It?

I will definitely be criticized for this statement, but I wouldn't mind it too much, but then again, if animals, by any chance, do not have the kind of emotion and understanding as we do, then its like saying they should not exist.

of course you most likely did not mean it that way, and I know what you really mean, but it's just a hole

Earth as a whole is the only planet in this solar system, very possibly this galaxy or this entire universe, to have life at all.

though this kind of strays away from the main point of this discussion, but I believe that it is almost impossible that in this enormous universe, we are the ONLY planet that can sustain intelligent life, it kind of self-centered and ridiculous.

I agree, people almost always squander their potential and do awful things and make the world a horrible place. There is no denying that at all. However, they also do just as many amazing things, things that are so self-sacrificing and altruistic and mind-blowing; the thing is, the bad things have more immediate, visible effect, and they are something that needs to be dealt with instead of marveled at, so they are talked about and shown and discussed more.

I am not denying that there a large amount of good in this world, however it is like looking at the night sky, where good actions are the stars, and bad ones are the infinite blackness (not counting the moon ofc ) And then you have to examine those good actions and see if there are some ulterior motives to doing so.

Humans aren't the only ones who make the world a horrible place.

Of course we are not the only ones who do horrible things, however the scale and intensity of our actions, intended or not, are on a vastly different scale than those that animals do.

However, humans (and hey, dolphins if they ever advance that far) are something that has the ability to make themselves better, even if they almost always waste it.

Indeed they can make the world a great place, however that is unfortunately not really going to happen, at least in the coming future.

And, finally, I agree with the last statement resoundingly. Living in my particular area of Texas can really grate on anyone with half a brain who hasn't had it washed repeatedly since birth, let me tell you.

lol I live in Texas too, although probably in a different area, because I, in my short life, have yet to encounter the type of people you mention, although that is most likely due to the area I live in.

 

 

Now on to some other comments

 

I think you are generalizing a bit too much here. There are MANY humans who care and also try to take care of the planet. A larger portion than you might think.

Indeed I am generalizing, however, it is not as big of a generalization as you may think.

And humans ARE getting better about making technology more environmentally friendly. Cleaning products, cars.. even using less plastic to make things with. If humans didn't care, these wouldn't exist.

And you should ask yourself WHY we are trying to do these things, and the primary reason is so WE, the HUMAN race, does not die of from global warming or solar radiation or whatever.

Not unless you want to commit mass genocide against all humans on Earth.

naw, politicians will do that for me

 

 

 

I am reminded of David Attenborough, interviewed on the radio a few years ago, being asked about all the things that were happening on earth, answering very knowledgeably about planetary self-correction and the rest

At the end, the interviewer said "Oh great - so then, the human race will survive ?" and there was a sort of stunned silence for a sec - and then Attenborough said "Humans ? I thought we were talking about the planet. The human race hasn't a prayer in hell."

LOL indeed, I think I have heard that before too completely agree too.

 

 

 

I have to disagree with nuclear disaster being the only viable method of human extinction. It's true that it would have an irreversible effect, but I've always felt that a "super" disease or virus were much more likely. Nature strives for balance and sickness is a very important factor in population control and environmental upkeep; things like MRSA look to me like an early warning sign =o

Never said It was the ONLY method, just that it is the most likely, and I was making a slight inside joke towards policy debate, which if you are familiar with, a large argument is that the world will die from nuclear annihilation

 

I do agree that "superviruses" is a large possibility to extinction. Zombie apocalypse anyone?

Edited February 7, 2012 by BlackStar159

[Dymetreus]

I only read the first 10 or so pages, and I must say; this topic is very educational. If Vexx doesn't mind it, whether he or she intended it or not I find them very funny and give many props to them!

 

On the subject, I am equal. I don't feel like posting a huge paragraph on it so I'll make it simple; I believe all life is equal. If I could only save one or another, I would attempt to save both and would die trying. In the end it would probably cost me both lives including my own which is terrible. If they were separated, and I had to go from one to another then it would have to be the human.

 

By saving the human, I would try to tell them what I wanted to do, why. Maybe teach them, and who knows. That human could be the one to save all the animals due to some great discovery or invention. It's hard to say, my mind thinks anything is possible. All it requires is time.

 

Back to giving out 1,000 more clicks on Daily Dragon Fix!

Edited February 7, 2012 by Dymetreus

[Duke_Falcon]

The question in it's true form:

 

Are lifes more important than lifes?

Useless comparison without meaning. Life is life. Equal undisputedly no matter what kind of life we speaking about...

 

Or(!)

 

Is there something difference between humans and animals? You think humans differs in any meaning?

No, humans are still animals. Humans still unable to rise over their animal rage and killing instincts and thus unable to think and act logically what is an important definitive trait of an intelligent specie. So humans are still animals and thus the question above still valid: Are lifes more important than lifes?

 

But if you strict about a futile human-animal comparison then animals are way more important than humans. Without animals humans not even exist...

 

Animals are unseparateable parts of the Nature, the Ecosystem that sustains Terra's life. If you cut out pieces from it (animals, for example or as another example made species extinct) you damage this sensitive system. And if the damages cause the system to collapse everything dies with it: But first that ignoring and expandable race called Human (and humans are no more part of the ecosystem, they became independent as they think and they also think that this is justify their destructive deeds against Nature...).

[tigger294]

I think that animals are so important that humans, they are a living thing, but the pleople don't think like that, and experiment or abuse of animals because they think that animals aren't important and also are less valuable than humans.