Jump to content
hibini

Are humans more important than animals?

Recommended Posts

Baby animals can be just as fussy, bratty, and selfish as human babies. Not all animals "appreciate what they can get." Cats are a pretty good example of this. Dogs will usually eat what they can find when they are hungry, but cats can and will starve themselves to death if they don't like their food.

Except my cat who will eat anything, literally almost anything. You name it, she'll eat it! Moths, ants, spiders, flies, plants, plastic, even her own vomit. It's a little sickening... rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I think other animals because humans don't hunt each other for sport and the smart one ( the ones smart enough to avoid getting their death on dumb ways to die song) pretty much live. It's not like humans are helpless, since they have medicines and stuff, and they aren't locked up in cages for their lives or butchered. And it's not like the human population is overrun by killers, and just cuz someone has cancer or pneumonia or some kinda deadly disease doesn't mean they gonna die. Pic mean, look at the cat clans, about one dies in every book, that's what happens. So, it's not the humans in distress, it's the other kinds of mammals, the birds, and the reptiles. ( AND LOOK HUMANS ARE THE MOST CAUSE OF THING EXTINCT OR ON THE BRINK OF OF EXTINCTION BEING THERE!) I'm going to try to make a animal abuse lineage maybe, counting child abuse too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
I think other animals because humans don't hunt each other for sport and the smart one ( the ones smart enough to avoid getting their death on dumb ways to die song) pretty much live. It's not like humans are helpless, since they have medicines and stuff, and they aren't locked up in cages for their lives or butchered. And it's not like the human population is overrun by killers, and just cuz someone has cancer or pneumonia or some kinda deadly disease doesn't mean they gonna die. Pic mean, look at the cat clans, about one dies in every book, that's what happens. So, it's not the humans in distress, it's the other kinds of mammals, the birds, and the reptiles. ( AND LOOK HUMANS ARE THE MOST CAUSE OF THING EXTINCT OR ON THE BRINK OF OF EXTINCTION BEING THERE!) I'm going to try to make a animal abuse lineage maybe, counting child abuse too.

Uuuuummm did you just cite a fictional book series for you information on cat behavior?

Share this post


Link to post

I think other animals because humans don't hunt each other for sport and the smart one ( the ones smart enough to avoid getting their death on dumb ways to die song) pretty much live. It's not like humans are helpless, since they have medicines and stuff, and they aren't locked up in cages for their lives or butchered. And it's not like the human population is overrun by killers, and just cuz someone has cancer  or  pneumonia or some kinda deadly disease doesn't mean they gonna die. Pic mean, look at the cat clans, about one dies in every book, that's what happens. So, it's not the humans in distress, it's the other kinds of mammals, the birds, and the reptiles. ( AND LOOK HUMANS ARE THE MOST CAUSE OF THING EXTINCT OR ON THE BRINK OF OF EXTINCTION BEING THERE!) I'm going to try to make a animal abuse lineage maybe, counting child abuse too.

Humans kill each other all the time.

 

Doesn't matter how smart you are, accidents happen all the time and anybody can die at any point regardless of their IQ.

 

While I agree that some forms of confinement are cruel, did you lump all confinements together, regardless of how suitable the conditions actually are?

 

Cancer, pneumonia and deadly diseases are regarded as deadly because they do kill, well over half of the time.

 

You're citing a fictional book?

 

While humans have indeed caused the extinction of far too many species, domesticated cats have also led to the extinction of species and species die out all the time of natural causes - the polar bear is a prominent example of the latter. Global warming is happening because we're just coming out of an ice age; this species is doomed regardless of if we're making an impact and speeding the process up or not.

 

----

 

Dropping my two cents in on the matter, I'd donate to as many overlooked causes as I could with what money I had. I'd ignore the more prominent ones because they'd already be having plentiful donations; wolves, pandas, polar bears and the like get enough attention. I'd rather pitch in towards helping, say, the Philippines eagle, the kakapo and the Lord Howe Island stick insect breeding programs. Without animals we really could not survive, but I don't ignore humans. Where there are people in strife, I'd like to help out. I do place humans above animals for many reasons but I'd be more likely to donate towards the stick insect breeding program's than I would towards, say, emergency supplies after a city is flooded simply because whenever there is such trouble, a lot more people pitch in than they would towards animals.

 

Don't count me on that last sentence because I'm not sure how accurate it is; I'm merely going off of what I have seen in various media over the years.

Edited by rampaging wyvern

Share this post


Link to post

^Preach it, most people who say that they love animals mainly care for the well known and pretty ones.

Share this post


Link to post

Lately I've found myself dumping my spare change into the charity pot at the local supermarket regardless of what charity it is. Sometimes it is for children, sometimes it's cancer and sometimes it is the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).

 

I know it's not always a lot, but if you want to make the world better for anyone, animal or human, surely it is better to do so in small doses than not at all?

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly care more about animals than I do humans (yes, hate on me), so whenever I get the chance, I donate to animal shelters and/or organisations.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I think that someone donating to any good cause is a worthy thing to do. If it is your own money, why not spend it on something you feel strongly about? For me, conservation and animal rescue is something I feel strongly about, so I donate to those things. Conserving apex species like tigers also helps conserve everything else (including forest, which helps everyone, including humans) because they require large amounts of natural habitat.

Share this post


Link to post
I think its awful how many people are saying that we should kill off humans because we are overpopulating. Would you kill billions of innocent human beings with a push of a button then walk outside to see everyone you loved dead? And how do we know humans are are the worse things to happen to animals, who knows we may just save all life on this planet from a massive killer asteroid (extremely unlikely to happen but just an example).

People keep saying this because if we don't start taking measures to control ourselves soon, we'll all start dying anyway as the environment that supports becomes more and more damaged and thus less and less able to support us. I don't agree with the mass murder of people, but we need to take long term measures now if we don't want to eventually kill ourselves off anyway.

 

In a natural ecosystem that has not been tampered with, natural selection and the predator-prey balance keeps populations in check and thus keeps that ecosystem healthy.

However, more and more ecosystems are being tampered with and sometimes irreparably damaged by humans. Out of fear and revenge for human deaths, humanity, in its arrogance, has seen to it to take out major and key predators out of ecosystems, allowing prey populations to run out of control, which in turn damages the plants and surrounding land. Once we realize what we've done, we finally start conservation programs to try conserve the selfsame species we originally sought to destroy. A prime example is wolves - once considered scourges, they were hunted to the point of extinction in the wild in some places, and in recent times there have been desperate efforts to bring them back and reintroduce them to their once-natural habitats.

 

Humanity has successfully overridden natural selection to the detriment of its environment. This is why some people consider us the worst things to happen to animals: because we are.

 

It helps even less that so many of the people in positions of power all over the world are too blinded by politics and personal agendas to fully realize the terrible wrongs we've wrought on our surroundings, and that the common people are often too ignorant (either willfully or not) to care and get legislation pushed to try and help environmental recovery.

 

I don't really think humans or animals are more important than each other. The environment we live in is the most important thing, because without it both man and animal would be dead anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Humans ARE animals.

Yes we are laugh.gif

 

So, I'm gonna comment on a "let's say we're a different group for a second" thing: Animals are more important than people. They are food, the environment wouldn't work without them, everything would collapse. And that's why we shouldn't use our awesomeness to get rid of those pesky little bugs, they are (sadly) an important part of the ecosystem.

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like some of us (not all of us) are basing their decisions off of the wrong "type" of humans.

 

What do I mean?

 

For one, yes I do agree that there are jerks and loathsome people out there. I do agree that people are killing everything, mostly for their own pleasures. I'm not saying that humans are more important than animals, because I find both equally important. What I'm saying is, the humans who need money, donations, etc, are in dire need of help.

 

Those people are dying due to lack of clean water, food, and shelter, and it's not their fault. They are innocent bystanders of war, colonialism, and other factors that aren't in their control. Decisions such as these that are based on the attitudes of the egocentrics and not the benefactors isn't helpful.

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, wouldn't you want to help out a starving child in Africa then help out poor suffering tiger

Tiger.

Say you had a thousand bucks. How would you divide it between an animal charity and a human related charity?

950 bucks to animal charity. 50 bucks to human related charity.

If I had a choice between saving an entire species of some animal, or saving one human child...

Animals.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that ya, humans are more important than animals. Animals agree. But it's not in the way you think it is. Any given species prefers its own kind for sharing resources over a different species. Many even argue that altruism is a myth.

 

*cough*Ayn Rand*cough*

 

Also - if all the humans suddenly did disappear it would be a global disaster for all surviving species if you think about it. Just as it would be a global disaster for us if bees suddenly disappeared, or deer, or any other specific niche group of animals. In fact I think there's one place in Japan or China (can't remember) that has no pollinating insects and so all pollination is either done by humans or by the wind (where applicable) - humans suddenly disappear then this region would become unable to support much variety in the way of animal life.

 

To consider the life of an animal, say puppies, more important than the life of a human is... rather peculiar.

 

What is the potential of a puppy when it grows up? It might be a seeing eye dog, rescue dog, or a companion pet. All things which benefit people but I'm not sure what it does for the dog.

 

A person however can grow up to become a veterinarian, the owner of a rescue shelter, a doctor, therapist, police man, ect.

 

So by this logic, preferring to help humanity over an animal helps both humans in the short term and has the potential to help animals as well in the long term. Choosing an animal over a human is by the same logic short sighted as the majority of animals do not directly contribute to helping anyone but themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
People keep saying this because if we don't start taking measures to control ourselves soon, we'll all start dying anyway as the environment that supports becomes more and more damaged and thus less and less able to support us. I don't agree with the mass murder of people, but we need to take long term measures now if we don't want to eventually kill ourselves off anyway.

 

In a natural ecosystem that has not been tampered with, natural selection and the predator-prey balance keeps populations in check and thus keeps that ecosystem healthy.

However, more and more ecosystems are being tampered with and sometimes irreparably damaged by humans. Out of fear and revenge for human deaths, humanity, in its arrogance, has seen to it to take out major and key predators out of ecosystems, allowing prey populations to run out of control, which in turn damages the plants and surrounding land. Once we realize what we've done, we finally start conservation programs to try conserve the selfsame species we originally sought to destroy. A prime example is wolves - once considered scourges, they were hunted to the point of extinction in the wild in some places, and in recent times there have been desperate efforts to bring them back and reintroduce them to their once-natural habitats.

 

Humanity has successfully overridden natural selection to the detriment of its environment. This is why some people consider us the worst things to happen to animals: because we are.

 

It helps even less that so many of the people in positions of power all over the world are too blinded by politics and personal agendas to fully realize the terrible wrongs we've wrought on our surroundings, and that the common people are often too ignorant (either willfully or not) to care and get legislation pushed to try and help environmental recovery.

 

I don't really think humans or animals are more important than each other. The environment we live in is the most important thing, because without it both man and animal would be dead anyway.

Perfectly said. But, in my opinion, humans aren't important to the food chain. If we all disappeared the other animals would be fine.

Share this post


Link to post

We're more important to ourselves.

And guess who's in charge.

 

Well, with that mentality we're looking down the barrel of a loaded gun.

I'm just glad I probably won't be around when it goes off.

Edited by Psyduсk

Share this post


Link to post

One of the things I absolutely cannot stand is when people act as if their dog or cat is like a human child to them. Yes, I have four cats of my own, and one of them in particuliar I really love, but in the end, it's still just an animal.

 

Any animal can kill you and I think most people have forgotten that. Yes, I also know that humans kill humans, but I tend to lean on humans being more important than animals. The work we do may not seem to be to important to us, but's important in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
I think that ya, humans are more important than animals. Animals agree. But it's not in the way you think it is. Any given species prefers its own kind for sharing resources over a different species. Many even argue that altruism is a myth.

 

*cough*Ayn Rand*cough*

 

Also - if all the humans suddenly did disappear it would be a global disaster for all surviving species if you think about it. Just as it would be a global disaster for us if bees suddenly disappeared, or deer, or any other specific niche group of animals. In fact I think there's one place in Japan or China (can't remember) that has no pollinating insects and so all pollination is either done by humans or by the wind (where applicable) - humans suddenly disappear then this region would become unable to support much variety in the way of animal life.

 

To consider the life of an animal, say puppies, more important than the life of a human is... rather peculiar.

 

What is the potential of a puppy when it grows up? It might be a seeing eye dog, rescue dog, or a companion pet. All things which benefit people but I'm not sure what it does for the dog.

 

A person however can grow up to become a veterinarian, the owner of a rescue shelter, a doctor, therapist, police man, ect.

 

So by this logic, preferring to help humanity over an animal helps both humans in the short term and has the potential to help animals as well in the long term. Choosing an animal over a human is by the same logic short sighted as the majority of animals do not directly contribute to helping anyone but themselves.

wat

Humans disappearing wouldn't really hurt animals, aside from a few things that are domesticated, or only surviving in captivity or whatnot. It would be infinitely better for them in the long run.

 

There is also no place without pollinating insects that used to have them.

Share this post


Link to post

It's hard to say...

Humans are animals. So basically we're comparing a single species of animal to all the other millions of species? That's kinda hard.

Now, if it's a question of which I usually prefer the company of, or which is helping the environment more, I'd say animals in a snap!

I prefer to donate to animal causes rather than human, but I try my best to give a little money to both when I have extra.

Share this post


Link to post
Humans are animals. So basically we're comparing a single species of animal to all the other millions of species? That's kinda hard.

Can I like this post? That's what everyone's been saying but no one's been getting.

 

Dogs vs the world - world wins.

Bees vs the world... it's a tough call but... still got flies, wasps, hornets, butterflies, less efficient pollinators but the world still wins.

Humans vs the world - take a wild guess. Even with the nuclear holocaust and other various world encompassing disasters that will happen when all of our stuff doesn't get tended or disposed of properly, the world will still probably win.

Share this post


Link to post

Animals for sure. We don't give them much credit but they are smarter than we think. Sure, we're the main cause for some species' struggles, but does that mean that we have the power to permanently defeat them?

I'd think that animals would win this one, and technically, humans are animals too so...

On a level of importance? I'm for the animals. Without animals, the ecosystem wouldn't even exist and the humans would die out anyway. Life as we know it wouldn't exists it without nature, and wee the sole reason animals are having a hard time because of our overpopulation and need for convenience.

Edited by GalaxyPassion13

Share this post


Link to post

I donate whenever I can, as much as I can, to whoever needs help. Children who need donations to be treated in a different country because mine is poor with medical things, animals in need of shelter and food, I never close my eyes on anyone's misery and make no differences. Everyone who was born deserves to live, everyone who needs help deserves to get it. Children get more donations in my country as there are more charity organizations that tries to help them, but animals aren't neglected either. But I do donate to animals a bit more since there are less organizations that help them, and they need a lot of help. I'm proud of all people who help both the children and animals whenever they can and as much as they can. EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS.

Share this post


Link to post

Well now it is... It has been made that way by us. Because if humans disappeared suddenly and were replaced with some other species similar to humans to fill in the food chain, the world would end. Many unmanned nuclear power plants would go off, dead mans rockets would fire all over the world, many cars and trucks carrying gasoline and acid or dangerous things would crash. Planes would crash, oil refinerys would lose thier oil into sea eventually. But we made it that way so it is our job to maintain the world itself.

 

Also don't judge me I didn't read the other comments...

Share this post


Link to post

To the earth in general animals are more important. We're only one species and can't do everything by ourselves. But I think humans should be humans top concern, it's only natural to put your own species above all others.

I'm not saying people shouldn't take care of other animals when we can, but of course we as a species will put ourselves first. You think tigers wouldn't do the same in our position?

 

Humans are way too self hating.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.