Jump to content
hibini

Are humans more important than animals?

Recommended Posts

Humans are animals too, to some point. Greed, violence, instinct, etc.: Don't they come from animals?

 

But humans can make their own educated judgements and they act beyond instinct, something you rarely find in animals.

 

Though scientifically, animals and bacteria would be more important. As grimace said, if all the animals or microscopic creatures died out, we would be dead in a matter of weeks. But if we died out, others would have a MUCH easier time surviving.

 

However, humans are special in the way that we have complex emotions and advanced thinking and progress.

 

So are we better? Scientifically, like, lolno. Nobody needs us to survive. In fact, everyone dies because of us. And besides, we are animals. But in our own minds, we are better. We value ourselves above animals, which is true to some point: we have made more progress and advancement than animals. But in the animals' eyes, we have made less progress than them. Look at our way of living. We are parasites on the earth. We mine the ores and drill the oil and blow up the surface with bombs. Yet, what impact do animals have on the earth? None. They rarely leave any trace they were there.

 

So are humans "better" than animals? Scientifically no. We depend on other species for food. Progressively, yes and no. We still haven't figured out how to live without eventually destroying our habitat, despite our modern technology. But emotionally and mentally, yes. By a lot.

 

We are equal to animals, in my opinion.

Edited by beacker1160

Share this post


Link to post
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 ourselves healthy. 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.

actually in alot.png of cases we do. we have packs of bacon in wal-mart thats restocked recently. and as for the fashion case, we really have a choice on that. you can't eat the meat of a cow and say it's alright to use the pelt for a jacket.

 

in alot.png of places, there aren't choices to kill or not.. food and fahsion are two different matters though. food, we don't have a choice because we're omnivores and need meat as much as we do veggies/ fruit. for fashion, it's uncalled for. we can get by using cotton or wool.

Share this post


Link to post

you can't eat the meat of a cow and say it's alright to use the pelt for a jacket.

 

for fashion, it's uncalled for. we can get by using cotton or wool.

Well, I didn't say anything about fashion. I was talking solely about food.

 

But I agree with you. smile.gif

Edited by Dauntingale

Share this post


Link to post

Well...between a family starving in Africa because the land is either used for commercial farming or made of desert, and a preservation park for tigers, I'd really rather choose the people. After all, they're starving to death, and not of their own accord. One could say tigers are also in trouble that isn't their choice, but at least they can survive on their own when hunting (usually).

There are six billion humans. I don't know how many need help, but I can guess that the number of people who need help is higher than it should be. If we were to leave animals and their habitats alone, they'd be fine on their own. However, we can't leave societies of humans that we've made contact with alone, because humans end up depending on other humans.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

I know plenty of people who have read articles, studies, etc. who would argue that you can live an even healthier life as a vegetarian. I think it really depends more on how your food was made. These days, we do have a lot of choice, though big companies and such make it hard to eat healthy.

 

There are people who do need meat to survive, though. If anybody remembers a former GD mod - Ali - she had some disease where she needed to eat meat or her body wouldn't be able to function like it was supposed to.

 

However, I don't see how humans eating meat has anything to do in deciding whether or not we more important than other animals. o.O (Our treatment of livestock may help show what the prevailing opinion is, but just eating meat?)

Share this post


Link to post

Truthfully, i would split it 75% for the animals, 25% for the humans. The world is overpopulated, plus i have a growing hatred of the human species and would mind if it died out completely, even if i had to go with it.

Share this post


Link to post

If you eat meat that was killed by a human, you are indirectly saying that you (the meat eater) are more important than the eaten. Also, if you eat veggies (or any other food), drink water, or breathe air, you are indirectly saying you (the consumer) are more important than anything else that could have used those resources, whether you actually think so or not. Yay for extrapolation :P

 

Also, I don't think the question OP is asking is whether animals or people are important, but rather which one deserves or should get more aid.

Share this post


Link to post

I know plenty of people who have read articles, studies, etc. who would argue that you can live an even healthier life as a vegetarian. I think it really depends more on how your food was made. These days, we do have a lot of choice, though big companies and such make it hard to eat healthy.

 

However, I don't see how humans eating meat has anything to do in deciding whether or not we more important than other animals.

As I remember it, there were articles that said certain functions of the body wouldn't work properly without meat, or least they wouldn't work as well as they could.

 

I brought up eating meat because that's a reason to hunt.

 

And I'm not saying we're more important by saying that we need to hunt animals. That would be like saying lions are more important than zebras.

 

As for which of us, animals or humans, should receive more aid, I'm leaning towards neutral because as I said, we're of equal importance. The starving Africans deserve as much help as the tigers.

Edited by Dauntingale

Share this post


Link to post
As for which of us, animals or humans, should receive more aid, I'm leaning towards neutral because as I said, we're of equal importance. The starving Africans deserve as much help as the tigers.[/size][/font]

I would be more inclined to donate towards starving human beings than tigers. At least, I would feel more sympathy towards fellow humans. I don't think it's an issue of importance, because that could be defined in a multitude of ways. I think that alleviating suffering is very important, but there's a difference between the plight of an endangered species and that of a starving human being. The way I see it, it's an issue of sentience and consciousness.

 

A tiger may have some level of thought and understanding, but it doesn't compare to that of a human being. A tiger doesn't understand that it's endangered. A tiger may feel the effects of a dwindling habitat and a depleted food source. It may feel hunger and a drive toward food, but it doesn't really understand that it is suffering.

 

On the other hand, starving people in Africa do understand. They not only feel the pain, but recognize the unfairness of it. They have to live through, not only the physical suffering of hunger, but also the psychological, social, and emotional pains that come with it.

 

I don't really know how much objective sense that makes. I'm trying to organize my thoughts as I type, but I end up second-guessing myself.

Share this post


Link to post
actually in alot.png of cases we do. we have packs of bacon in wal-mart thats restocked recently. and as for the fashion case, we really have a choice on that. you can't eat the meat of a cow and say it's alright to use the pelt for a jacket.

 

in alot.png of places, there aren't choices to kill or not.. food and fahsion are two different matters though. food, we don't have a choice because we're omnivores and need meat as much as we do veggies/ fruit. for fashion, it's uncalled for. we can get by using cotton or wool.

But if you're going to slaughter the animal for food, you may as well use the leftovers as well to reduce wastage. I agree that mindless slaughter of the animals *only* for fashion shouldn't take place, but if you're going to eat the meat and use the leftovers for clothing etc then it's not as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
The way I see it, it's an issue of sentience and consciousness.

 

A tiger may have some level of thought and understanding, but it doesn't compare to that of a human being. A tiger doesn't understand that it's endangered. A tiger may feel the effects of a dwindling habitat and a depleted food source. It may feel hunger and a drive toward food, but it doesn't really understand that it is suffering.

 

On the other hand, starving people in Africa do understand. They not only feel the pain, but recognize the unfairness of it. They have to live through, not only the physical suffering of hunger, but also the psychological, social, and emotional pains that come with it.

 

I don't really know how much objective sense that makes. I'm trying to organize my thoughts as I type, but I end up second-guessing myself.

I understand what you're getting at because I just read a book (Human 2.0, I recommend it) that talked about human evolution and why we are the way we are. We are different from animals because we have conscious thought as you said. We can think of the past, present, and future and make plans whereas tigers, and other animals alike, only think of the present. If you get what I mean.

 

So basically, I think you're saying its not a matter of importance, or how deserving an animal is, but who can actually feel the suffering(?)

 

For example, if two people were to be killed, but one was to be tortured before the killing, that person would need rescuing more than the other?

 

Makes sense.

 

But, with tigers gone, the food chain would be disrupted...

 

Erg, now I'm confused. dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
But if you're going to slaughter the animal for food, you may as well use the leftovers as well to reduce wastage. I agree that mindless slaughter of the animals *only* for fashion shouldn't take place, but if you're going to eat the meat and use the leftovers for clothing etc then it's not as bad.

I agree with this. In fact, I think it's disrespectful to kill an animal and then not use as many parts of it as possible. What a waste :/

Share this post


Link to post
I agree with this. In fact, I think it's disrespectful to kill an animal and then not use as many parts of it as possible. What a waste :/

For cows and other such food animals, sure. But it's different when people kill foxes or pretty birds for their furs and feathers, and even worse with rhinos and elephants for ivory or tigers for fur, when they're already endangered. I don't see people eating fox or rhino.

 

Then again, if we ate and used what we killed, maybe we'd have less wars.

 

Also people tend to care more for cuter things. Most people would help the polar bears or leopard seals more than they would help an endangered, but important, insect.

Share this post


Link to post

exactly. i agree with using the parts leftover to reduce the amount of trash on earth, because its the last thing we need. but killing an animal like a cheetah just because the print is attractive is wrong. you dont eat cheetahs. i dont walk into a resteraunt and see "cheetah burger" on the menu. but i do see women walkin around with a genuine cheetah print purse. its not right. but for the animals we actually eat, it isnt as terrible because we used all the parts. or consumed them, so it isnt wrong to eat meat and then use the rest of the parts. as long as the animal is something naturally ate (chicken,cow, occasionally deer etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
exactly. i agree with using the parts leftover to reduce the amount of trash on earth, because its the last thing we need. but killing an animal like a cheetah just because the print is attractive is wrong. you dont eat cheetahs. i dont walk into a resteraunt and see "cheetah burger" on the menu. but i do see women walkin around with a genuine cheetah print purse. its not right. but for the animals we actually eat, it isnt as terrible because we used all the parts. or consumed them, so it isnt wrong to eat meat and then use the rest of the parts. as long as the animal is something naturally ate (chicken,cow, occasionally deer etc...)

How do you know it's genuine?

Share this post


Link to post
For cows and other such food animals, sure. But it's different when people kill foxes or pretty birds for their furs and feathers, and even worse with rhinos and elephants for ivory or tigers for fur, when they're already endangered. I don't see people eating fox or rhino.

 

Then again, if we ate and used what we killed, maybe we'd have less wars.

 

Also people tend to care more for cuter things. Most people would help the polar bears or leopard seals more than they would help an endangered, but important, insect.

i) Foxes are in abundance I believe, so I don't think it would be such an issue killing them for food and clothing.

 

ii) Maybe here in the US and UK. Given Artic communities seals and polar bears, it is very much a case of YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post

After reading two articles this past week one about a dog who was euthanized in Ireland for looking like a pit bull and "Hope" a dog in Texas who as per authorities was the "worst case of animal cruelty" my opinion is that humans are not that important.

 

In the case of the dog who was euthanized, I understand that in England/Ireland it is against the law to own a pit bull because they consider it to be a vicious dog. The owner of the dog told authorities she would muzzle the dog; she was willing to have the dog adopted out to people who did not live in Ireland. The dog was not even a pit bull breed, just looked like a pit bull. It could have been a mixed breed. The authorities still euthanized the dog. The word that comes to mind is prejudice. The authorities judged the dog because of how the dog looked. Interesting ... very interesting.

 

In the case of "Hope" she was found with her mouth taped shut with electrical tape with her tongue out; five large cuts that needed more than 100 stitches; she was dehydrated. She may have to have part of her tongue removed because it was so swollen. Rescuers state that she knows how to sit when they tell her; has known love; and she knows how to show love.

 

So, at least for this week, I'm thinking humans are not so important.

Share this post


Link to post

In fact, everyone dies because of us.
Not true by far. In fact, there is a huge number of various creatures who thrive solely because of humans.

We are parasites on the earth. We mine the ores and drill the oil and blow up the surface with bombs.
The Earth couldn't care less what we did or did not do. The Earth is not a living being, and what is not alive can't technically have parasites.

Yet, what impact do animals have on the earth? None. They rarely leave any trace they were there.
They don't build as large constructions, sure, but that's about it. Other animals than humans are entirely capable of exploding in population and consuming entire forests, weeding out or eating up other species, etc., etc. We humans are literally like any other drastically successful species.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have too much of a problem with people eating animals. But I do have a problem with how people treat animals. Especially farm animals.

 

When most people go to somewhere like McDonalds they sit down and order their food. If they got fried chicken, when it comes they start eating it. They don't think about what that chicken went through to be put on their plate.

 

The way most McDonalds restaurants kill the chickens is horrible! The chickens head is dunked in electrified water. No sedation, no humane death.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
The way most McDonalds restaurants kill the chickens is horrible! The chickens head is dunked in electrified water. No sedation, no humane death.

Rubbish. The animals are not killed at the actual resteraunts, they are pre-prepared elsewhere. Links please.

Share this post


Link to post
After reading two articles this past week one about a dog who was euthanized in Ireland for looking like a pit bull and "Hope" a dog in Texas who as per authorities was the "worst case of animal cruelty" my opinion is that humans are not that important.

 

In the case of the dog who was euthanized, I understand that in England/Ireland it is against the law to own a pit bull because they consider it to be a vicious dog. The owner of the dog told authorities she would muzzle the dog; she was willing to have the dog adopted out to people who did not live in Ireland. The dog was not even a pit bull breed, just looked like a pit bull. It could have been a mixed breed. The authorities still euthanized the dog. The word that comes to mind is prejudice. The authorities judged the dog because of how the dog looked. Interesting ... very interesting.

 

In the case of "Hope" she was found with her mouth taped shut with electrical tape with her tongue out; five large cuts that needed more than 100 stitches; she was dehydrated. She may have to have part of her tongue removed because it was so swollen. Rescuers state that she knows how to sit when they tell her; has known love; and she knows how to show love.

 

So, at least for this week, I'm thinking humans are not so important.

I don't support breed-ban legislation, but most dogs judged as Pits are not purebred by any means necessary. The "pit bull" breed isn't even one breed in general, there are at least four breeds considered to be pits.

 

That said, it is entirely the owner's responsibility to check that their pets are legal in their area. If I decided to own a fox, even a domesticated one, it would be euthanized if found by the authorities because that is the law and I broke it. It sad her dog was euthanized, though I suspect we don't have the full story here. But it isn't like laws are hidden in some secret place where we can never know them.

Share this post


Link to post

I would honestly say for me, yes.

 

Its true people do horrible/monsterous things...but that shouldnt count for humanity as a whole. We have our fights, but we do so to find peace and greater understanding as a whole. Through violence people can find a kinship and a next level of understanding. I know this doesnt happen all the time, but it does happen.

It is true that sometimes there is no reason to why people do crimes against animals (I am completely against it) I will not defend them and I understand the opinions on animal cruelty on this topic - but again it doesnt account for humanity as a whole.

Some People can be reasonable and do no such crimes intentionally so I cant hold a grudge on an entire species from a select few. People seem to forget that cruelty does happen, but people do good deeds for animals too. For example veterinarians, conservationists and charity foundations.

 

Sorry if my opinion offends people, Im just stating...well my opinion on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't support breed-ban legislation, but most dogs judged as Pits are not purebred by any means necessary. The "pit bull" breed isn't even one breed in general, there are at least four breeds considered to be pits.

 

That said, it is entirely the owner's responsibility to check that their pets are legal in their area. If I decided to own a fox, even a domesticated one, it would be euthanized if found by the authorities because that is the law and I broke it. It sad her dog was euthanized, though I suspect we don't have the full story here. But it isn't like laws are hidden in some secret place where we can never know them.

Omitted was the dog that was euthanized was 7 years old and the owner did tell authorities she would muzzle it. Also, there was no record that the dog had ever bite anyone or no complaints against the dog. People from outside of the country were even willing to adopt the dog. IMO the authorities did not have to euthanize the dog.

 

Some laws are "hidden" for instance did you know that its illegal for a donkey to sleep in bathtubs. (Arizona) biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Okay ... my faith in humanity has been restored. Saw an article today of a man who was standing on the roadside (don't know what city or anything) with a sign that said "I have a house; and a car; and a job. Do you need an extra few bucks for coffee?" He was celebrating his 65th birthday by doing 65 random acts of kindness.

 

The human race is capable of such cruelty and also able to do random acts of kindness. Wish we would do more random acts of kindness *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.