Jump to content
hibini

Are humans more important than animals?

Recommended Posts

Seeing as humans cannot survive without animals, but animals can survive without humans, it would be pretty hard for anyone to actually argue humans are more important.

Share this post


Link to post

Humans are more important than animals, but animals are easier to like.

 

I love animals. I have spent all my life around them. But at the end of the day if I had to choose between a human family member or my dog, then, well... but in all situations where I didn't have to really CHOOSE then I'd be doing my darnedest to save both. Dogs are still a part of the family, and a great one.

 

Now, that being said, when it comes to donating money I... sort of prefer the animals. For a few reasons. First of all, in my area there's many more animals in need than there are humans. I'd much rather donate my money to the things in need around me then send it off to Africa where God knows what actually becomes of it. Secondly... sad but true, humans cause wars. Donating money to a shelter stands a good chance of producing an animal that'll be happy and cuddly for life. Donating money to people always has that grim chance that even if your money truly is a lifesaver to them that they'll turn into criminals or corrupt soldiers or who knows what other form of murderous lowlife. The unfortunate reality is that the people most in need of assistance tend to live in places where helpless starving kids are most likely to grow into crazed and violence-prone adults.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't feel we are, considering as we take to slaughtering every living thing and destroying the planet we call home. It's our fault because we choose to shelter the weak/stupid/disabled and not let natural selection take place. So yes, I would rather save a dying fox or animal than a human.

Share this post


Link to post

*Sigh* This is a really hard decision. I mean, I love animals. There's just something about them that fascinates me. The fact that I have a dog and I love her doesn't really help the human case in my decision. All we do is destroy animal habitats and hunt them. Animals can still feel and think, just not on the same level we can.

 

At the same time, we're all humans. As bad as the human race might seem sometimes there are very kind people out there. Those of us who are trying to save the animals and the earth from decaying and dying off. . .

 

I just. . . I don't know. I think I hold them both kind of equally. If I saw a dying person and a dying animal I'd want to save them both, you know? Not just one.

Share this post


Link to post

i would rather reach out to an animal than a human. the world is a bit overpopulated and it wouldnt hurt to lose a few. i know that sounds bad but wildlife is what sustains the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't feel we are, considering as we take to slaughtering every living thing and destroying the planet we call home. It's our fault because we choose to shelter the weak/stupid/disabled and not let natural selection take place. So yes, I would rather save a dying fox or animal than a human.

Saving a dying anything interferes with natural selection. If you're so committed to it, you shouldn't be saving the cute and cuddly ones, either.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't feel we are, considering as we take to slaughtering every living thing and destroying the planet we call home. It's our fault because we choose to shelter the weak/stupid/disabled and not let natural selection take place. So yes, I would rather save a dying fox or animal than a human.

Don't bother turning up in my hospital then.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't feel we are, considering as we take to slaughtering every living thing and destroying the planet we call home. It's our fault because we choose to shelter the weak/stupid/disabled and not let natural selection take place. So yes, I would rather save a dying fox or animal than a human.

Your shelter was just revoked. Get out there and do it entirely on your own. How do I know you aren't doing it now? You're 17 and posting on a forum for collecting dragon sprites. Stop playing Pokémon and use that bow of yours to hunt. You're old enough to feed yourself, so chop chop!

 

i would rather reach out to an animal than a human. the world is a bit overpopulated and it wouldnt hurt to lose a few. i know that sounds bad but wildlife is what sustains the planet.

 

Just a few days ago, you asked a question here looking for answers about why you were feeling so tired. People reached out to their fellow human in order to help a little. However, they probably shouldn't have, because the planet is overpopulated and it wouldn't hurt to lose a few.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a hard Q. If I saw a dyeing animal and a dyeing person I would save which ever was in more pain. But if they were both painless then I guess I'd save whichever had a better chance of surviving after I helped it.

Share this post


Link to post
Saving a dying anything interferes with natural selection. If you're so committed to it, you shouldn't be saving the cute and cuddly ones, either.

It's not natural selection if we dump toxic waste which otherwise wouldn't exist as heavily into a lake, swamp, etc and just poison a population of such and such species. Though I understand my logical is flawed and you wouldn't want me governing the world, nor would I.

 

@princess

 

I understand I look as if I am a bad guy, but I was just expressing my thoughts. Am I asking that we stop caring about society? No, I love people at times. Am I saying I would rather save this than that? Yes, but still being at a young age I do not know what is best for the world. Also thanks for the laugh! I got a chuckle from that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Humans are more important than animals, but animals are easier to like.

 

I love animals. I have spent all my life around them. But at the end of the day if I had to choose between a human family member or my dog, then, well... but in all situations where I didn't have to really CHOOSE then I'd be doing my darnedest to save both. Dogs are still a part of the family, and a great one.

 

Now, that being said, when it comes to donating money I... sort of prefer the animals. For a few reasons. First of all, in my area there's many more animals in need than there are humans. I'd much rather donate my money to the things in need around me then send it off to Africa where God knows what actually becomes of it. Secondly... sad but true, humans cause wars. Donating money to a shelter stands a good chance of producing an animal that'll be happy and cuddly for life. Donating money to people always has that grim chance that even if your money truly is a lifesaver to them that they'll turn into criminals or corrupt soldiers or who knows what other form of murderous lowlife. The unfortunate reality is that the people most in need of assistance tend to live in places where helpless starving kids are most likely to grow into crazed and violence-prone adults.

Donating ? I'd give to animals, no question. THEY don't have the money to donate to each other. Humans do !

 

Saving - I'd try for whichever looked to be more save-able. Unless the human was my sister, in which case the kitten wins this week mad.gif ....

Share this post


Link to post

well to be honest, all animals have a place on this planet to keep the world in balance. if wolves went extinct the deer/caribou population would start to grow. not skyrocketing, because there are plenty of other predators. but with one less it will grow and it isnt always a good thing. but because i have a personal....grudge against the majority of humans i really do prefer animals. but that excludes humans, because humans are animals too. if i was to donate a million dollars to anything of my choice, it would go to stopping animal abuse, neglection, abandonment, the shelters, or anything to stop animal hunting and killing. because humans get plenty of money, its like when kittens are at a shelter. they always get adopted out first while the older cat has to wait until that right person shows up. in that case human charities are the kittens and the animal charities are the older cat.

humans are overpopulating the world, or begining to get there. what with media showing couples with 20 kids, we're going to overpopulate.

you cant say humans are more important than animals because we are animals. or vice versa. but to me the other animals are more important. humans did alot.png of bad things but animals did too. but humans keep on doing terrible things, not all but alot.png. but everythings important on the earth, everything no matter how small has a role in life.

Share this post


Link to post
humans are overpopulating the world, or begining to get there. what with media showing couples with 20 kids, we're going to overpopulate.

The media shows couples with 20 kids because it's sensational, not the standard.

Share this post


Link to post

The media shows couples with 20 kids because it's sensational, not the standard.

but as people catch onto that their gonna go "hey, lets have 20 something kids so we can be rich and have a TV show. so we can act like we're being overworked when we're really sitting in piles of our money!"

 

once those 20 kids grow up the creators are going to want another 20 kids and a couple so they can continue to get veiwed and rich. it's not sensational when it continues and continues and continues.

 

let me explain that, not every couple has 20 kids but there are alot.png of shows when they have more than 2 or 3. 8,13, however many more. it being sensational has worn off. if everyone keeps it up like that we will overpopulate. mabye not in this year or the next but as we keep growing we'll be stealing more of animals homes for our own and continuing to have our own kids when their are plenty of kids in the foster homes. and that space where the kids are waiting for families could be used to help the hundreds of animals that need homes, too.

Edited by NightLovesFantasies

Share this post


Link to post

but as people catch onto that their gonna go "hey, lets have 20 something kids so we can be rich and have a TV show. so we can act like we're being overworked when we're really sitting in piles of our money!"

 

once those 20 kids grow up the creators are going to want another 20 kids and a couple so they can continue to get veiwed and rich. it's not sensational when it continues and continues and continues.

 

let me explain that, not every couple has 20 kids but there are alot.png of shows when they have more than 2 or 3. 8,13, however many more. it being sensational has worn off. if everyone keeps it up like that we will overpopulate. mabye not in this year or the next but as we keep growing we'll be stealing more of animals homes for our own and continuing to have our own kids when their are plenty of kids in the foster homes. and that space where the kids are waiting for families could be used to help the hundreds of animals that need homes, too.

You seem to be seriously overestimating how easy it is to influence people. Saying people will want 20 kids because they see people with 20 kids is like saying because I see people getting rich for being stupid and crazy means I'll want to start acting ballistic. Snooki's ability to prosper off her own idiocy is pretty amusing, but I have no plans to start acting like her or any other deranged celebrity.

Edited by angelicdragonpuppy

Share this post


Link to post
You seem to be seriously overestimating how easy it is to influence people. Saying people will want 20 kids because they see people with 20 kids is like saying because I see people getting rich for being stupid and crazy means I'll want to start acting ballistic. Snooki's ability to prosper off her own idiocy is pretty amusing, but I have no plans to start acting like her or any other deranged celebrity.

i should have explained that better, i didnt mean to overreact. and this is a discussion on other animals and humans. i dont think we should discuss influencing people on this thread. it was just to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
It's not natural selection if we dump toxic waste which otherwise wouldn't exist as heavily into a lake, swamp, etc and just poison a population of such and such species. Though I understand my logical is flawed and you wouldn't want me governing the world, nor would I.

 

@princess

 

I understand I look as if I am a bad guy, but I was just expressing my thoughts. Am I asking that we stop caring about society? No, I love people at times. Am I saying I would rather save this than that? Yes, but still being at a young age I do not know what is best for the world. Also thanks for the laugh! I got a chuckle from that.

Ah, but the strong adapt to the changing environment. The strong live regardless.

 

There was a species of moth who adapted to the changing color of trees in Europe after the Industrial Revolution (the Gypsy moth, I believe?). The moths originally lived on light colored trees, and thus were colored similarly to the bark to avoid being spotted by birds. As more plants burned coal, the trees darkened because of soot. The lighter colored moths were picked off by predators, while the darker colored moths bred and survived.

 

And guess what, the moths are changing back to lighter colors to match the cleaner trees in their environment. THAT is natural selection caused by humans and pollution. No one cared about the moths because they're not cute and cuddly like baby foxes or pandas. Nature did what nature does best: adapt.

 

Nature is like Eevee, most of the time.

 

On the topic of pandas, pandas are notoriously bad breeders regardless. And their diet is awful. Bamboo isn't all that nutritious, hence why they eat so much. Were it not for humans, pandas would have likely gone extinct on their own. We, uh, just kind of sped it along (no, I'm not saying that's good at all. I'm pointing out that some species, in the long run, aren't really designed to survive in large numbers).

Share this post


Link to post

.... Humans are too needy. I know I am a human, but I would prefer animal. Most humans are bad. we populate slowly, but are already in great animals. We RUIN homes by making dams for electricity, cuttting down trees, and others. Peopel die all they time, you knnow? maybe if we were less needy, the world would be much better.

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

Yes, because needing shelter and food, the same things other animals need, makes us needy.

 

Humans are animals, too.

 

Protip: Beaver dams cause a lot of damage to their ecosystems, too. And they're not even making electricity with it.

Share this post


Link to post

i'd say that i would rather help animals because i see less people in animal shelters helping out than in human needs centers like the red cross. though humans are animals and i tolerate one more than the other so i guess i'd help the one most in need and weigh the importance. in truth if i did have enough money to donate i'd donate to help plants like red wood trees and all. without them we'd all be sunk. sense they provide use shelter, crafts, food, and oxygen. LOL

 

i prefer though to donate my time to animals, sense i haven't enough money to donate.

Share this post


Link to post
i'd say that i would rather help animals because i see less people in animal shelters helping out than in human needs centers like the red cross. though humans are animals and i tolerate one more than the other so i guess i'd help the one most in need and weigh the importance. in truth if i did have enough money to donate i'd donate to help plants like red wood trees and all. without them we'd all be sunk. sense they provide use shelter, crafts, food, and oxygen. LOL

 

i prefer though to donate my time to animals, sense i haven't enough money to donate.

I don't understand this logic. More people donate to help animals than people, so you should, too?

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand this logic. More people donate to help animals than people, so you should, too?

my point is that i see more people volentering at the Red cross than at the animal shelter (only two or three other people do but they stay at dogs, i prefer working with the cats.) my logic is that more than likely people donate more to the red cross cause for humans than the shelter for animals (given the lack on supplies and working conditions the shelter staff has to work in.) if i had money i'd more than likely donate it to the animals sense they are in greater need of the money and resources. granted the animal shelters require more money and supplies because of how much food they go threw and that too determine if they have to put the animals down. if they have the food and stuff needed they don't have to put any one of the critters down and it gets the animals out of holding faster and more animals adopted. its bad that they have to put the animals down for limited resources and bad enough irresponsible pet owners don't get their animals fixed. strays normally become that way from being born from pets that aren't fixed and the family don't want to feed the babies only the parents so the babies wonder off and all.

 

the animal shelters can use the money more to make more holding areas or repair and get supplies for the animals, there are only so much of certain things that people can get for them.

Share this post


Link to post
...

 

Yes, because needing shelter and food, the same things other animals need, makes us needy.

 

Humans are animals, too.

 

Protip: Beaver dams cause a lot of damage to their ecosystems, too. And they're not even making electricity with it.

But... We're too needy....

 

We dig the earth, trying to get all the petroleum and coal. We make up this money system. Animals don't have that, do they? Shelter could have been much easier, finding natural places to live, like caves. I think... I wish I were an animal. Animals actually die because of us, and sometimes become extinct, never to be seen again.

Share this post


Link to post
But... We're too needy....

 

We dig the earth, trying to get all the petroleum and coal. We make up this money system. Animals don't have that, do they? Shelter could have been much easier, finding natural places to live, like caves. I think... I wish I were an animal. Animals actually die because of us, and sometimes become extinct, never to be seen again.

We have money in order to recompense others for the time and energy and resources that have been expended in order to provide them with resources that otherwise they themselves could not gather. Most non-human species gather their own food, find their own shelter, and past that do not need anything more - we, however, rely on everyone else for almost everything we own. Hence the invention of money.

 

Do you think we should go back to sitting in caves all day, hunting and procreating and nothing else? If you really believed it that deeply, why do you have thousands of posts on an Internet forum? Why are you not living in the woods eating grubs and roadkill?

Share this post


Link to post
We have money in order to recompense others for the time and energy and resources that have been expended in order to provide them with resources that otherwise they themselves could not gather. Most non-human species gather their own food, find their own shelter, and past that do not need anything more - we, however, rely on everyone else for almost everything we own. Hence the invention of money.

 

Do you think we should go back to sitting in caves all day, hunting and procreating and nothing else? If you really believed it that deeply, why do you have thousands of posts on an Internet forum? Why are you not living in the woods eating grubs and roadkill?

Im still a kid. I can't go out into the wild without making my parents sad. And I don't want them to be sad, anyway. But I would live in a forest, where I could be outside all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.