Are humans more important than animals?

[jetfire1309]

Well, I'm more in the middle of it all.

 

Yes humans are intelligent and can make things and pretty much took over the world, but they (we) destroyed the world as well. We made species of animals mingle with species that were native to the land, wiping them out pretty much because of trade. We created and destroyed diseases and introduced them to animals that were not immune. We caused extinctions of animals and tried to help others.

 

Yet we are a part of nature just evolved through a mutation. We helped and we destroyed, so it's all up to opinion.

Honestly, I like animals more than people only because of my graduating class, compiled mostly of smokers and the 'popular crowd'.

 

 

[Kila]

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.

Humans don't have claws or fangs. We never have had them. Even if you believe in evolution we never had claws. Great apes, our closest relatives, do not have claws. They're not the fastest, either, so they rely on their brains and their ability to make tools.

 

There are a lot of intelligent animals, but intelligence should not be confused with pack or pride mentality. Parrots are smart. Squids are smart. So are apes and pigs and dolphins. But they're not self aware. Most, if not all animals, function on their base instincts. Humans, for the most part, don't. We have some, like fight or flight or how we choose potential "mates", but for the most part our self awareness and intelligence have "overridden" our base instincts.

 

Of course we rely on our creations. Why wouldn't we? If you look at it from a broad perspective all animals rely on their own creations. The queen relies on her colony and the shelter they build, the zebra relies on its herd for camouflage, the beaver on its dam. We rely on our creations because we didn't exactly evolve with claws or fur.

 

Do we go about it in the best way? Certainly not. But step back for a moment and look at all the awareness going around. We know we've messed up. We're trying to fix it. But since we don't have the technology to fix it we're trying to develop the technology to do so. That's the great thing about being human. We can speculate and try to gauge how our actions will impact the world. A lion won't care about how stealing the kill of a cheetah will impact anything but itself. That's what sets us apart from other animals.

 

Edit: On electricity and how animals not having it makes them "less intelligent"....well it kinda does. Animals can't tame fire, either (not that man really can, either, but we harnessed it). Man figured out electricity and how to use it because we have need of it. Animals don't have the capacity to understand how it works or how to use it. Many of them have smaller brains than we do, and their brains are devoted to things aside from complex thought and self awareness.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Kila

[NightLovesFantasies]

their intelligent to their standards. human standards arent for every living thing. you can not compare a human and a goldfish because their two different animals. and what do you think evolved into the great apes something with claws and fangs most likely. because a big change happened it didnt need fangs or claws anymore so it evolved. just because they cant speak human language doesnt mean their stupid. every animal is intelligent, because their still surviving today (excluding the ones humans caused or sped up). some of the animals in one species could be more intelligent than the others. because not every human is a genious like historys geniouses. some of us could be dumb as dirt (the ones without disabilaties that make them less efficiant. again i have bad spelling. they cant be blamed for that, only the dna given to them can be blamed) but their still considered smart. but another animal (ex. dolphin) is labeled stupid compared to that person.

Edited July 6, 2012 by NightLovesFantasies

[7Deadly$ins]

their intelligent to their standards. human standards arent for every living thing. you can not compare a human and a goldfish because their two different animals. and what do you think evolved into the great apes something with claws and fangs most likely. because a big change happened it didnt need fangs or claws anymore so it evolved. just because they cant speak english doesnt mean their stupid. every animal is intelligent, because their still surviving today (excluding the ones humans caused or sped up). some of the animals in one species could be more intelligent than the others. because not every human is a genious like historys geniouses. some of us could be dumb as dirt (the ones without disabilaties that make them less efficiant. again i have bad spelling. they cant be blamed for that, only the dna given to them can be blamed) but their still considered smart. but another animal (ex. dolphin) is labeled stupid compared to that person.

Not everything started out with fangs and claws.

[NightLovesFantasies]

Not everything started out with fangs and claws.

we may or may not have, we have missing links to our ancestory

[Nine]

I never said it did excuse us[...]

I know that isn't what you're trying to say at all...

I realize you weren't trying to excuse it persay, I just went off some of your examples to broaden my post (while not really directing it to anyone in particular).

[Princess Artemis]

just because they cant speak english doesnt mean their stupid.

My cousins' abuela appreciates the thought...

 

every animal is intelligent, because their still surviving today

 

Coelacanths aren't still around because they are smart. They are still around because they are 1. supremely well adapted to their environment, 2. nothing likes to eat them, and 3. no one has set up a "Rescue the Coelacanth" fund (yet). That's got nothing to do with how intelligent they are.

 

That's...pretty much the story for most animals. They aren't here because they have high-watt bulbs in their heads.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[NightLovesFantasies]

My cousins' abuela appreciates the thought...

 

 

 

Coelacanths aren't still around because they are smart. They are still around because they are 1. supremely well adapted to their environment, 2. nothing likes to eat them, and 3. no one has set up a "Rescue the Coelacanth" fund (yet). That's got nothing to do with how intelligent they are.

 

That's...pretty much the story for most animals. They aren't here because they have high-watt bulbs in their heads.

1. what?

2. im not saying their the animal versions of isaac newton or whatever. im just saying that if their still alive through the years they had to have been doing something right.

[Obscure_Trash]

1. what?

2. im not saying their the animal versions of isaac newton or whatever. im just saying that if their still alive through the years they had to have been doing something right.

1. Abuela means grandmother in Spanish. You might have been better off saying "couldn't speak a human language" rather than just English, as it was kind of rude - like you were saying anyone who didn't speak English isn't as smart as those who do. English is not the only language in the world.

 

2. You don't have to be smart to be doing something right. A lot of surviving is just evolutionary perks, not really intelligence. ;3

 

~

 

Humans are animals. I don't know how humans can be more important than what they are. o_O

[NightLovesFantasies]

1. Abuela means grandmother in Spanish. You might have been better off saying "couldn't speak a human language" rather than just English, as it was kind of rude - like you were saying anyone who didn't speak English isn't as smart as those who do. English is not the only language in the world.

 

2. You don't have to be smart to be doing something right. A lot of surviving is just evolutionary perks, not really intelligence. ;3

 

~

 

Humans are animals. I don't know how humans can be more important than what they are. o_O

1. woops. i didnt know that, at that moment i forgot there was of other languages (my derp moment). i should probably reword that.

 

2. true, but if they have a brain they use it. wether it be for wiring cell phones or simply eating. but some animals (dolphins, whales, some bird species) are capable of actual cognitive thoughts. some animal species are more intelligent than others though, i have to agree to that.

[GeekyWitch]

I a an animal rights activist so I gotta say humans are equal to animals and we have no right to eat, torture or experiment on them. They are our brothers and sisters.

[Kestra15]

I a an animal rights activist so I gotta say humans are equal to animals and we have no right to eat, torture or experiment on them. They are our brothers and sisters.

If we are equal to animals, and animals are allowed to eat one another, why can I not tuck into a nice steak?

[GeekyWitch]

If we are equal to animals, and animals are allowed to eat one another, why can I not tuck into a nice steak?

animals hunt for meat because they have to, if they don't they'll die, we as humans have a choice.

Edited July 7, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Walker]

animals hunt for meat because they have to, if they don't they'll die, we as humans have a choice.

Well...

 

Not really.

 

It depends on what part of the world you're in. In some, you eat what you can get and beyond that there isn't much choice. I don't think there is anything wrong with eating an animal if that's the only thing you can manage to catch that day, your crops are failing, and stuff like that.

 

And not eating isn't really a choice either if you want to live.

 

I guess this set of morals could try to be placed on people in first world countries, but even then... It's hard to ask a natural omnivore to limit their eating habits.

Edited July 7, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[GeekyWitch]

Well...

 

Not really.

 

It depends on what part of the world you're in. In some, you eat what you can get and beyond that there isn't much choice. I don't think there is anything wrong with eating an animal if that's the only thing you can manage to catch that day, your crops are failing, and stuff like that.

 

And not eating isn't really a choice either if you want to live.

 

I guess this set of morals could try to be placed on people in first world countries, but even then... It's hard to ask a natural omnivore to limit their eating habits.

That doesn't make any sense, I can't even answer that i'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[7Deadly$ins]

That doesn't make any sense, I can't even answer that i'm not sure what you are trying to say.

It makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps reread it.

[NightLovesFantasies]

That doesn't make any sense, I can't even answer that i'm not sure what you are trying to say.

depending on where you live you may not have mcdonalds or burgerking lined up around your house. in of parts of the wqorld people dont have the choice of fresh meat or a ceascer salad. they need to live too, and humans are animals so we have to eat. not everyone hunts for sport. some hunt because they have to in order to live. they might use the pelt to make clothes if its needed, because they dont have an old navy down the street.

animals have just as many rights as humans to live, while humans have as many rights to eat meat. you cant expect an omnivore to only eat fruit when it has the option of meat.

its not like we're eating endangered animals.

 

[xhunter]

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.

ya though humans cause deforestation and we are just patch working everything we mess up as best as we can. which is as good as a 2 year old sewing two fabrics. chances are if there was no human interference in theory they would not be declining so fast nor their environment would be declining. humans speed up the process of extinction for a number of reasons and we only do so good at patching things up. i believe if they are so determined to get the panda population up they might should try doing it manually or something, only problem there is that it would cost a lot to make the little critters! (though you'd have to take the time as well as teach it normal panda behavior and all.)

 

angelicdragonpuppy: ya but humans don't allow themselves to evolve (or better we kill off or sterilize anything different than the normal humans. most mark it down as evil or unnatural). without a large number of those creatures change would be unavoidable and i don't think that humans can keep up surviving if helpful mutations are being blotched out with the bad ones. so ya it would be boring without those critters as well as environment changing!

 

GeekyWitch: i agree half only. eating another creature, animal or plant, is natural and how any breed of creature survives. but humans have no right on torturing or experiment on them i defiantly agree. eating plants is killing something and i rather think they'd be as much 'if not more important' than any other creature on this planet. i have called plants a brother or sister as well as the 8 cats and mice and turtles i have brother and sister but that does not i deprive myself from eating substances that can't be gathered from obtainable plants or pills. before i got rid of my snake to another loving home (i had planned on joining the military but something came up and i could not really ask for him back sadly ) i had to breed mice in order to be able to feed my little zealthy but that did not mean that i was being unnatural or cruel to them. i fed those little creatures and cared for them as best as i could, yes i was sad that they had to die but i could not say no to feeding another creature that can't survive on anything else. darn at times we'd run out of food (rare cases however!) and i had to dip into the breeding stock to feed me till we got more food because i was saving the other food for my mom and them. its natural process even it is uncommon and less needed. i used every part of the mouse even the bones and that is what makes it natural, its only unnatural if you don't plan to use the dead body for befit of eating or keeping you alive.

please don't take it the wrong way but i found your statement a little N/A i guess would be a accurate statement. but give eating meat is not unnatural we can control what we eat and spare a creature that is declining in numbers to that of something more plentiful.

 

 

but anyways. all creatures have a mutation window in there genes where they gain or loss chunks its those chunks that befits that creature that determine if they survive.

[earthgirl]

I don't agree with the statement that animals aren't self-aware. They are more self-aware than most humans are. :/

They lack intellect, ego and ambitions, yes, they can't do some things us humans do, but then again, us humans can't do things many animals can.

 

To answer the question: humans and animals are all as important.

We, humans, with our intellect placed ourselves above all other beings, because we are able to fabricate guns to kill animals, pollute and destroy the environment. Because we can. Not to mention that doing this we are not only harming the animals, but also ourselves.

Animals aren't able to do this sort of stuff, don't have the will and 'intellect' to even think about destroying their environment. If humans didn't interfere then they'd all live in harmony(yeah, some hunt and eat meat, but it's the course of nature, otherwise some species like rodents would take over and destroy the ecosystem).

If we limited ourselves to raising and eating domesticated animals and cultivating grains and veggies, we very likely didn't cause as many disasters we have today.

 

After all, everything that moves on this planet has the same essence(soul), being a human, or a cat, or a horse, or a mosquito, etc. Therefore, all have the same importance.

[~Kat~]

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

 

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

 

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

No, I will not donate to any human suffering outside of the USA, even the starving children, sorry. Our people should be taken care of here first.

 

Now, if an animal and a human were in danger at the same time, yes I would have to save the human first, unless they were a murderer, child rapist or something like that, then I would save the animal first. I have cats, a dog and horses, and if it came down to my children or people that I know are decent, I would have to save them first before one of my beloved 4 legged family.

 

Humans are just as important as animals, but of course you have the human monsters who have brains that are cruel to humans and animls, and there is no need for it period. Animals suffer more at the hands of humans that can not defend theirselves.

 

It is up to the individual, who they donate to. I donate to animals, military, children, cancer and other organizations myself.

 

You should not be mad at her, that is being very shallow IMO. I am not mad at you because you donate to the children starving in Africa and I won't, see my point.

[Kila]

I don't agree with the statement that animals aren't self-aware. They are more self-aware than most humans are. :/

They lack intellect, ego and ambitions, yes, they can't do some things us humans do, but then again, us humans can't do things many animals can.

Animals aren't as self aware as people. A shark will not think about its place in the universe. It thinks about eating and procreating; survival.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

 

Some animals are self aware, but not to the degree of humans.

 

On the topic of how humans kill to eat "because we can", well...yes. It's natural. Not eating in excess, but it's silly to say that we eat meat just because "we can".

 

We're omnivores. Meat has been a part of our diet for as long as we've been around. Look at our teeth. A testament to our foraging days of hunting and gathering.

 

You should really thank primitive societies for farming and setting up permanent settlements. Thanks to that we became civilized and grew. and now thanks to all our developments everyone here gets to sit on the internet talking to people around the world almost instantly while sitting in a safe house/apartment/shelter and playing a game in which we collect pixels.

[Cori]

Adding a two cents in reply to the 'animals only kill to live' argument:

 

This is not true. Many animals have exhibited the tendency to kill for sport. One example that is thrust into the media quite often is wolves. Wolves often kill elk and deer for sport, which is a big problem when elk herds are already struggling in an environment where wood-boring beetles have decimated a lot of their food source.

 

That's why many places in the US control the wolf populations. If they can't prevent sport-killing and the elk herds vanish, then the wolves would starve to death anyway.

 

There are many other animals who kill for sport and not just to eat, so saying that humans are the only creatures who kill unnecessarily is false.

 

Also, to add to what I saw people talking about in terms of vegetarian lifestyles:

humans are naturally omnivores. We can eat both plants and animals, and both are natural parts of our diet. Saying people shouldn't eat meat at all is not true. What is true is that a person has the right to choose whether they eat meat or not. And that choice is something that should not be mocked. At the same time, vegetarians and vegans have no right to force their own eating habits onto other people. What another person eats isn't anyone else's business.

 

Influencing someone to change their eating habits is perfectly acceptable, but if they don't want to follow your example, then just let it be and don't worry about it.

[Ashes The Second]

Adding a two cents in reply to the 'animals only kill to live' argument:

 

This is not true. Many animals have exhibited the tendency to kill for sport. One example that is thrust into the media quite often is wolves. Wolves often kill elk and deer for sport, which is a big problem when elk herds are already struggling in an environment where wood-boring beetles have decimated a lot of their food source.

 

That's why many places in the US control the wolf populations. If they can't prevent sport-killing and the elk herds vanish, then the wolves would starve to death anyway.

 

There are many other animals who kill for sport and not just to eat, so saying that humans are the only creatures who kill unnecessarily is false.

 

Also, to add to what I saw people talking about in terms of vegetarian lifestyles:

humans are naturally omnivores. We can eat both plants and animals, and both are natural parts of our diet. Saying people shouldn't eat meat at all is not true. What is true is that a person has the right to choose whether they eat meat or not. And that choice is something that should not be mocked. At the same time, vegetarians and vegans have no right to force their own eating habits onto other people. What another person eats isn't anyone else's business.

 

Influencing someone to change their eating habits is perfectly acceptable, but if they don't want to follow your example, then just let it be and don't worry about it.

This. Humans hunt for sport, and humans are an animal, just on a less profound scale. We have a will, and the ability to make choices depending on our environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many animals do not have a 'self-awareness', nor a 'free-will' element to themselves. That does not make them lesser beings. Humans, back in prehistoric times, hunted animals because -we- did not have a choice at that time. We eventually grew into our omnivorous diet, again, correct me if I am wrong, I don't know a -lot- about this subject.

[dangershy]

Humans... are much more important, although that does not mean we are better than the other species. We are the only ones that have been granted the gift of speech, and thought. Well, it's true, we are quite a dumb species as you come to think about it, polluting the planet and whatnot. But even though we're more granted than the others, the thing is that we still should respect the animals, such as stopping animal testing, (taking advantage of the helplessness of them) and we should think about other animals, before we pollute or such. We were created in God's image, so we are entrusted with the job of taking care of the planet we live on. =)

 

... sorry to tread on your tail if this offends you in any way...

Well, we aren't doing a very good job of it.

 

I will make a better post when I have access to the computer.

[Dauntingale]

animals hunt for meat because they have to, if they don't they'll die, we as humans have a choice.

This is true somewhat. But in actuality, we don't really have a choice. We need meat to be healthy. I read so many articles on this when my friends tried to convince me to become vegetarian. We need both meat and veggies to keep our bodies well. I can post the articles and sites here.

 

We are indeed equal to animals. And animals eat other animals. So we do the same to keep living healthily.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Dauntingale