Jump to content
hibini

Are humans more important than animals?

Recommended Posts

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.

You're still more than physically capable of being a hunter-gather, of constructing your own shelter and living off the land.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

This is a good example of natural selection and the benefits of genetic variety and why killing off everyone that is weird and "abnormal" who are easy targets for natural selection is a terrible idea. It's a good example of not underestimating what a genetically diverse species of animals can do.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't consider one more or less important than the other. To me, animals are extremely important and the needless killing needs to stop before more and more species are gone for good... and for what? Our selfish desires. Not that I am advocating the killing of humans but there is no danger of extinction there either.

 

When it comes to donating, I don't have much to share but when I do, it goes to things that are important to me. Whether it is to organizations that help fund autism programs, wildlife protection, whatever. I think it is wrong to think of it in terms of what is important and what isn't because that can mean something different to everyone. You can donate to what means something to you and everyone else can do the same. Wildlife conservation and the environment happen to be two things at the top of my list. smile.gif

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!"

 

As someone who has met the Duggars and the Bates family that the oldest Duggar boy married into, I will tell you that's definitely not their attitude.

 

 

On topic, I would much rather my money go to a starving child who has the potential to change the world than to a stray cat that, while in a pitiable situation, does nothing to aid or hurt the world at large. Should we do everything we can to make sure animals are treated kindly? Yes. But I would never prioritize animals over people. That makes me sick. Sorry starving child in Africa, you'll have to wait, there's a puppy that needs heartworm medication. ?

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry starving child in Africa, you live a long ways away from me in an environment where dominating government and rebel forces rule the area, and donating money to you will probably go towards the opposite goal. Partly because of this, your environment is not currently sustainable for your population and my intervention will only allow the cycle of starvation to continue with your own children. Also, there's a homeless, mentally unstable, drug-addicted man living a few blocks away in my own country and he could probably use some help, even though people like to pretend he doesn't exist in favor of the more sympathetic image of a crying child.

 

At least by helping this puppy/kitten/squid/ladybug in my local shelter, I can see the positive results of my work and don't need to worry as much about that animal using its second chance in maladaptive ways.

 

Of course these are all slightly exaggerated situations (the "starving child in Africa" scenario is a pet peeve of mine), but when it comes to people preferring to donate to animal organizations instead of humans, I can completely understand. I support organizations that effectively do both at the same time too, such as supportive methods for people to grow their own food instead of poaching for bushmeat. I think those organizations are superior in every possible way than just giving money to theoretically feed a child.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry starving child in Africa, you live a long ways away from me in an environment where dominating government and rebel forces rule the area, and donating money to you will probably go towards the opposite goal. Partly because of this, your environment is not currently sustainable for your population and my intervention will only allow the cycle of starvation to continue with your own children. Also, there's a homeless, mentally unstable, drug-addicted man living a few blocks away in my own country and he could probably use some help, even though people like to pretend he doesn't exist in favor of the more sympathetic image of a crying child.

 

At least by helping this puppy/kitten/squid/ladybug in my local shelter, I can see the positive results of my work and don't need to worry as much about that animal using its second chance in maladaptive ways.

 

Of course these are all slightly exaggerated situations (the "starving child in Africa" scenario is a pet peeve of mine), but when it comes to people preferring to donate to animal organizations instead of humans, I can completely understand. I support organizations that effectively do both at the same time too, such as supportive methods for people to grow their own food instead of poaching for bushmeat. I think those organizations are superior in every possible way than just giving money to theoretically feed a child.

I completely agree with you as far as how the money is used. I only donate to organizations I've looked into enough to have confidence in how the money is used. I have a missionary friend who has been to Africa many times and marvels at the modern government buildings being built in the midst of slums with our "aid" money. My "starving African" thing is clearly an extreme. But using yours, I would rather donate to a local homeless shelter or rehabilitation clinic than to an animal shelter.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

Although I haven't done so in several months (shame on me), I volunteer at the local animal shelter. I make donations to various charities, both human and animal based, but when I volunteer my time, it goes towards the animals.

 

Many would probably agree that humans and animals both have needs, and as such, it is important that both causes receive support.

 

Bottom line: If I was in a situation - say a burning building - and had to make a choice of saving a human or an animal, I would choose to save the human.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'd sooner donate to an animal shelter than a homeless shelter. The reason the animal is there is purely the result of the owners failing it in some way. We created it, and then we abandoned it. It's more similar to an orphanage, except in orphanages they don't euthanize the children when they have too many.

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're smart. We're inventive. We're cognitive and aware of our existence. Other animals, or rather most others, are not. They don't care about philosophy or ethics or thinking about the world and what lies beyond it. Animals live day to day. They don't care why it rains, it just happens.

 

For humans to sit in caves all day is a terrible waste of the brain we were given.

 

Yeah, animals go extinct. They went extinct before humans, too. Without humans some species would already be extinct (pandas, anyone?). Extinction happens. It's natural. Nature is a cruel mistress and it's not rainbows and butterflies and adorable animals. You know what else goes extinct? Plants. But you don't see people getting up in arms over plants. Or endangered bugs. The hypocrisy is laughable, really.

 

You're a kid. You haven't gotten to see the fact that humans can do so much good in the world because we're more intelligent than animals. Yeah, we're needy. We need to make clothes and we have to have better kinds of shelter because nature didn't give us fur or claws. Nature gave us intelligence. And we used it.

 

Edit: Reworded because I derped pretty hard. WHOOPS.

Edited by Kila

Share this post


Link to post

We're smart. We're inventive. We're cognitive and aware of our existence. Other animals, or rather most others, are not. They don't care about philosophy or ethics or thinking about the world and what lies beyond it. Animals live day to day. They don't care why it rains, it just happens.

 

For humans to sit in caves all day is a terrible waste of the brain we were given.

 

Yeah, animals go extinct. They went extinct before humans, too. Without humans some species would already be extinct (pandas, anyone?). Extinction happens. It's natural. Nature is a cruel mistress and it's not rainbows and butterflies and adorable animals. You know what else goes extinct? Plants. But you don't see people getting up in arms over plants. Or endangered bugs. The hypocrisy is laughable, really.

 

You're a kid. You haven't gotten to see the fact that humans can do so much good in the world because we're more intelligent than animals. Yeah, we're needy. We need to make clothes and we have to have better kinds of shelter because nature didn't give us fur or claws. Nature gave us intelligence. And we used it.

 

Edit: Reworded because I derped pretty hard. WHOOPS.

I can mostly agree on this here, except for one thing:

Without humans some species would already be extinct (pandas, anyone?).

 

It's because of us pandas nearly went extinct. And we are responsible for the cause of many extinctions.

 

Edit for re-word XP

Edited by rampaging wyvern

Share this post


Link to post

Pandas have a 24 hour (or is it 48? It's not a long time, regardless) breeding window and their diet is strictly bamboo. Their numbers have been dwindling (due to deforestation and other causes). So because pandas cannot leave their food source for too long (because the nutritional content of bamboo is atrocious) it's hard for a couple to actually reproduce. And if a mother has two cubs she leaves one to die, and there's a chance she may kill one.

 

So yes, without modern human intervention I believe pandas would have gone extinct regardless. Humans just sped up the process.

Share this post


Link to post

nature gave us furs and claws to begin with, we evolved. we evolved from ancient monkey species to become cave men (again, forgot the scientifical name. and neaderthals makes it sound like brutes). we evolved into what we are now. and humans are animals, we are just a different species. and it's our fault many species went extinct (dodo bird) or are now endangered. we can do good. but the majority of the species does not. we hunt for sport/fashion, hunting because the species needs to be kept down from overgrowing is different. or hunting for food. i had to say that because i do eat meat. i love it, in fact. but we do not eat tigers or lions, but we do kill them so celebreties (who are for some reason are admired and loved everywhere) can look good and brag about getting it imported from africa/any other country or whatever. I

personally prefer other animals, but both humans and other animals are equally important. we're all included in the ecosystem, to keep it balanced. if one went extint it affects all the other animals in that region.

Edited by NightLovesFantasies

Share this post


Link to post

Pandas have a 24 hour (or is it 48? It's not a long time, regardless) breeding window and their diet is strictly bamboo. Their numbers have been dwindling (due to deforestation and other causes). So because pandas cannot leave their food source for too long (because the nutritional content of bamboo is atrocious) it's hard for a couple to actually reproduce. And if a mother has two cubs she leaves one to die, and there's a chance she may kill one.

 

So yes, without modern human intervention I believe pandas would have gone extinct regardless. Humans just sped up the process.

I agree. I don't understand how pandas are alive at all, their needs seem ridiculous and even in the most ideal conditions they seem like they wouldn't be able to keep up a numerous population. Savings species that can barely survive even in the best conditions is just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. I don't understand how pandas are alive at all, their needs seem ridiculous and even in the most ideal conditions they seem like they wouldn't be able to keep up a numerous population. Savings species that can barely survive even in the best conditions is just stupid.

You know, I've always found it interesting how people support Darwinism on the one hand but do their best to save endangered species on the other. As easy as it is to focus on the big, beautiful animals that humanity has nearly wiped out, people forget about the smaller species that thrive with us. Rodents, barn swallows, seagulls, deer, coyotes... by the laws of natural selection and evolution it's the species that have learned to survive a changing world (aka us) that ought to go on, not the tigers and pandas.

 

'Course I don't really care about all that, I like animals and I'd like to see as many kept around as we can. We might not be able to save every endangered beetle or bird in the Amazon, but we can at least try to help out what species we can. A world without pangolins or polar bears would be pretty boring.

Edited by angelicdragonpuppy

Share this post


Link to post

* We may have "sped up the process" as far as Panda bears are concerned, but I find that the severe exception and not the norm. Just as well, the panda's fragility does not excuse humankind's negative influence and the same goes for every creature that ever went extinct/is threatened by humankind in an unnatural way. I don't see humans as a method of natural extinctions like shifting continents or disease.

 

Extinction is natural, yes. Humankind being the driving force behind such destruction is not natural. Killing off the Passenger Pigeons was not nature's way or a natural course of evolution. Had a more proficient, naturally evolved bird taken over the passenger's niche and gradually pushed them into nonexistence, then that would have been a naturally occurring extinction. However, that is far from what happened; humankind slaughtered the entire species with such ruthlessness and little disregard for anything other than the joy of bloodsport.

 

It is extremely important than humankind does not attempt to classify our actions as "nature's course" and reason away the extinctions we have/are directly causing. To try to excuse such cruel, unfathomably heinous acts such as the eradication of the passenger is misguided at best. I know that isn't what you're trying to say at all, but to try to reason away human-driven extinction in comparison to natural selection is a dangerous idea to promote.

 

* I don't like Panda bears. They are one of the few-- if only-- animal that pisses me off to see get so much hype and conservation effort. If even half the effort that went into saving them was directed toward a different species under peril, such as a Javan Rhinocerous, my god the progress we'd be seeing...

 

If we had a topic dedicated purely to endangered/extinct animals, I'd be spamming that thing up the schizz with threatened snails and bugs and stuff. I mean, I haven't even seen anyone on DC mention Lonesome George and his recent plight, that right there is top head-line of the year imo.

Edited by Nine

Share this post


Link to post

Considering Lonesome George was the last remant of a subspecies rather than an entire species, I never felt too bad for him. At least his species is still kicking around, even if his particular type of shell isn't.

 

Edit: some idiot has decided to declare the entire species extinct on Wikipedia because of Lonesome George. Good grief. OTL

Edited by angelicdragonpuppy

Share this post


Link to post

It was more or less the principle of his death that I feel was so important; that his species was probably beyond repair before we even started to protect it. The same thing happened with Martha the Passenger pigeon, the last Thylacine, the Baiji, etc. Too little done too late, which I think is a prospect people need to be more aware of. That the conservation of species is extremely dependent on preventive measures and the protection of populations/environments before it gets to that point.

 

Also, while George may have only been classified as a "sub" species, it's still a pretty huge impact for the scientific and conservation communities. Similarly, if the Javan Rhinoceros went extinct (which may be a near possibility), I'd still be pretty crushed even if there are still African Rhinos out there. I tend to view subspecies as separate entities of a greater whole-- like if we suddenly lost all the Australians in the world, that'd be pretty huge even if humans in general are still okay. No offense to Australians, of course =P

 

Is this getting off-topic? Okay okay, I'll stop posting.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that we are all equal. Without animals we cant live

Share this post


Link to post
I think that we are all equal. Without animals we cant live

I know I'm going to be flamed for this, but even though we can't live without animals, animals can live without us and have done so for millions of years. I can't help but feel the human race is a bit of a useless offshoot, but maybe that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
It is extremely important than humankind does not attempt to classify our actions as "nature's course" and reason away the extinctions we have/are directly causing.

 

exactly! one animal species directing the life of another species was not how nature was intended to be. if nature wanted a species extinct theyd be dead by now. for one reason or another. they have to adapt to their enviorment properly to survive. just like the dodo birds were. a predator does not naturally swim across an ocean to find different prey. those birds were adapted to a land with little to no predators hunting them. which is why they thrived instead of dying out (until travelers settled down there). im really getting tired of people saying "oh nature wanted humans to help all the species of the world that we almost killed off!" but sometimes it isnt entirely the humans fault, sometimes they speed it up or it is there fault. sometimes they didnt even bother with that species and they die out. extinction happens.

Share this post


Link to post
I know I'm going to be flamed for this, but even though we can't live without animals, animals can live without us and have done so for millions of years. I can't help but feel the human race is a bit of a useless offshoot, but maybe that's just me.

And the entire biomass of Earth would go on without, say, tigers.

 

You're stacking one species against ALL the rest. Of course one going missing isn't going to impact the ZILLIONS, while if the ZILLIONS go missing, the one left will be in deep trouble.

 

Seriously, this thread has got to be one of the most bizarre things I've seen. The self-hatred and misanthropy on display here is staggering.

Share this post


Link to post
* We may have "sped up the process" as far as Panda bears are concerned, but I find that the severe exception and not the norm. Just as well, the panda's fragility does not excuse humankind's negative influence and the same goes for every creature that ever went extinct/is threatened by humankind in an unnatural way. I don't see humans as a method of natural extinctions like shifting continents or disease.

 

Extinction is natural, yes. Humankind being the driving force behind such destruction is not natural. Killing off the Passenger Pigeons was not nature's way or a natural course of evolution. Had a more proficient, naturally evolved bird taken over the passenger's niche and gradually pushed them into nonexistence, then that would have been a naturally occurring extinction. However, that is far from what happened; humankind slaughtered the entire species with such ruthlessness and little disregard for anything other than the joy of bloodsport.

 

It is extremely important than humankind does not attempt to classify our actions as "nature's course" and reason away the extinctions we have/are directly causing. To try to excuse such cruel, unfathomably heinous acts such as the eradication of the passenger is misguided at best. I know that isn't what you're trying to say at all, but to try to reason away human-driven extinction in comparison to natural selection is a dangerous idea to promote.

 

* I don't like Panda bears. They are one of the few-- if only-- animal that pisses me off to see get so much hype and conservation effort. If even half the effort that went into saving them was directed toward a different species under peril, such as a Javan Rhinocerous, my god the progress we'd be seeing...

 

If we had a topic dedicated purely to endangered/extinct animals, I'd be spamming that thing up the schizz with threatened snails and bugs and stuff. I mean, I haven't even seen anyone on DC mention Lonesome George and his recent plight, that right there is top head-line of the year imo.

I never said it did excuse us. In a past post in which I brought up the panda example I stated that, and I'll state it again.

 

We as humans have done horrible things, but as humans we have the capacity to fix things. Note that I said capacity. We still have to learn exactly how to fix things, because the best way won't become clear overnight.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I posted here at one point... If so, it was a long time ago...

Anyways...

 

Just so anyone doesn't flip out on me, I'm not applying this to everyone. I've seen a lot of great people on this thread, and know a lot of great people in real life.

 

I personally have a very low view of Humanity. We have completely screwed over our own planet, and view ourselves way too highly. And the whole reason we see ourselves this way is because we can build things. We think we're better than animals, and that we're smarter, and better in all ways... But really, think about it. We COMPLETELY rely on our creations. Without them, what do we have for hunting? Our hands. We are slow compared to many animals, and get hurt easily. What do we have to stay warm when it's cold? Nothing. Don't really think I need to explain this one. I could really go on about a lot more, but I'm assuming everyone gets the point. Nature is so much stronger than us, and a lot smarter in many ways. We say that animals can't speak, but how the hell do we know that? Many animals have been proven to have their own complex ways of communicating, we just can't understand them. And for all we know, animals are just as intelligent as us. They just can't create things like we can because they aren't physically capable. Humanity has even picked up many tips from nature, and learned from it. I would never help a human. Call me evil, a monster, whatever. But in my eyes, humanity deserves no help. We're the cause of all the destruction in the world, and we need to do something to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
I think I posted here at one point... If so, it was a long time ago...

Anyways...

 

Just so anyone doesn't flip out on me, I'm not applying this to everyone. I've seen a lot of great people on this thread, and know a lot of great people in real life.

 

I personally have a very low view of Humanity. We have completely screwed over our own planet, and view ourselves way too highly. And the whole reason we see ourselves this way is because we can build things. We think we're better than animals, and that we're smarter, and better in all ways... But really, think about it. We COMPLETELY rely on our creations. Without them, what do we have for hunting? Our hands. We are slow compared to many animals, and get hurt easily. What do we have to stay warm when it's cold? Nothing. Don't really think I need to explain this one. I could really go on about a lot more, but I'm assuming everyone gets the point. Nature is so much stronger than us, and a lot smarter in many ways. We say that animals can't speak, but how the hell do we know that? Many animals have been proven to have their own complex ways of communicating, we just can't understand them. And for all we know, animals are just as intelligent as us. They just can't create things like we can because they aren't physically capable. Humanity has even picked up many tips from nature, and learned from it. I would never help a human. Call me evil, a monster, whatever. But in my eyes, humanity deserves no help. We're the cause of all the destruction in the world, and we need to do something to fix it.

i agree to alot.png of that. the part i agree with completley is how we veiw ourselves as god like creatures compared to other animals (my own words ) we did alot.png of things to mess up our planets natural beauty, and the other animals that inhabit it. although i have to point out, that not all animals are capable of our kinds of complex thoughts. i saw a movie in science on dolphins and whales, which are beautiful and intellegint (sorry if i spell wrong) creatures. it even said that they might be capable of our kinds of thoughts, or very similar. not like "how will the world end" but thinking about their actions.because of a mirror test, they were very curious to see how they look. just like humans.

 

all animals make shelter, they all eat, they do alot.png of the things humans need to do to survive. and i dont want to hear from anyone "weeell they dunt have electronics or chairs!" thats because we go beyond what we need and invent what we want. animals have their own entertainment too. but just because its not a nintendo or xbox doesnt mean their not as smart as us.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.