Are humans more important than animals?

[C88]

Animals are more important than us. Humans are a plauge, there are too many of us and we have no predators. If we had predators, our population would be culled and we wouldn't be overpopulated. But no, instead we have to destroy everything and ruin the Earth. We are nothing more than parasites, and the world would be far better off if we all died and our inventions dissapeared.

[HorseChick]

Animals are more important than us. Humans are a plauge, there are too many of us and we have no predators. If we had predators, our population would be culled and we wouldn't be overpopulated. But no, instead we have to destroy everything and ruin the Earth. We are nothing more than parasites, and the world would be far better off if we all died and our inventions dissapeared.

I agree with you.Animals don't destr the Earth like us.But we haven't let the Earth rest.We are exploding our resources,and sooner or later we will all die.

[Banyanpan]

Animals are more important than us. Humans are a plauge, there are too many of us and we have no predators. If we had predators, our population would be culled and we wouldn't be overpopulated. But no, instead we have to destroy everything and ruin the Earth. We are nothing more than parasites, and the world would be far better off if we all died and our inventions dissapeared.

What about the humans that are trying to fix our mess and genuinely care about the planet? Are they a plague? What did they do? Besides be born to the "wrong" species? What about the misanthropes? Are they somehow better than everyone else because they know humanity is rotten?

[LupaWulf]

If it comes to donations for animal charities vs human charities, it is all up to the person who is donating the money. If you have issues, donate your own money to your cause of choice.

 

 

That said, I find many of the charities for people related causes too in my face soliciting for money. I find I mostly donate to smaller rabbit rescues. I want to. Nothing more than that.

 

 

 

I don't really think one should be held over another. Animals need help too. Some of us can save the animals, others can help the humans.

[C88]

What about the humans that are trying to fix our mess and genuinely care about the planet? Are they a plague? What did they do? Besides be born to the "wrong" species? What about the misanthropes? Are they somehow better than everyone else because they know humanity is rotten?

Those are good people, but unfortunately there are not enough of them, and they cannot prevent what is to come without more help. Sorry, I should have been more specific. Most humans are parasites, not all.

[Whirlaway]

Animals any day. You don't see them senselessly killing each other like cannibals because some one wore their clothes "wrong" or were "different" from most.

 

Animals don't annihilate the Earth as humans do and no, the reason bees depend on us is because we have destroyed their natural habitats for our buildings and greed. We are destroyers not anything else.

[DragonNighthowler]

The title is wrong. Humans ARE animals, we are NOT a separate entity from nature. We are merely an occurrence in evolution, one that is incredibly adaptable at that. So stating humans as a separete entity is wrong.

 

Therefore, none is more important than the other. Humans need of other animal species in order to survive, in more ways than others. By considering the animal world a separate entity from the human world, and thus allowing certain abuses, we are only placing a rock over our very own survival. There has been an ongoing war against large predators and the scientific comunity is pretty convinced on the fundamental importance of such species in the ecosystem. As we belong to the very same ecosystem, the destruction of it will mean the destruction of that which we depend on to live.

 

The best example I can think of right now is the Four Pest Campaign;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

 

The campaign against the 'Four Pests' was initiated in 1958 as a hygiene campaign by Mao Zedong, who identified the need to exterminate mosquitoes, flies, rats, and sparrows. Sparrows – mainly the Eurasian tree sparrow[1][2] – were included on the list because they ate grain seeds, robbing the people of the fruits of their labour.

 

With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides.[1] Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine, in which at least 20 million people died of starvation.[5][6]

 

This doesn't apply only to this example. Areas in my country where wolves have been driven to extinction suffer an overpopulation of prey animals such as boar and deer, which have ravaged crop plantations to the point the damages are counted by millions of euros. The problem is so large in certain areas boar have started attacking livestock as well.

 

As for the whole argument about sending money to this or that organization, we are stablishing a hierachy of importance and thus negating all collaboration. Which is more importan? Human or other animal species? If we state humans are more important than the rest of species we can start discriminating in other frightening ways. Which is more important? The hunger in África or raising funds to build a new Hospital in the USA? Which is more important? Helping war refugees in Siria or raising funds to help the impoverished in a western country?

 

All causes are just. None is more important than the other.

[jalapeno]

It is important to note that "donations" very rarely donate a large amount of their money to the matter. A lot of it gets pocketed. For example, the top six most corrupt donation centers did not donate a dime to their cause. In addition, there was a donation center recently that collected millions of dollars in the fight for diabetes and only gave $10,000 to the actual project. The rest got pocketed.

 

It's for this reason I do not donate to charities unless I see the people actually receive what I gave. An example would be donating to a food bank or toys for tots.

 

When it comes to tigers I don't really see them all that often and even if I did I don't know what it could do with a 20 dollar bill.

 

When it comes to which is more deserving of charity I would have to say that people are. This may be coming from a place of "humans are superior" but I think they go through worse situations than animals. Although the tiger population is declining and it is important to try to preserve every species, but what about preventing horrific acts of violence against people.

 

Look at the genocide of the Jews, Native Americans, and Native Australians. There's nothing that can be done now, but why would animals be more important than these people?

 

In addition, people go through much more horrific things than animals. What of child molestation? This is a horrific occurrence that primarily happens to humans. Are we to do nothing about it? I think that those who care more about animals than people come from a place of feeling outcasted from society, which is terrible, but causes an unrealistic and some what sociopathic opinion. Just because someone feels out of place does not mean that it's alright to condone the death of billions. Your apart of these billions, and so am I.

 

Sorry to be so negative, I don't mean to offend.

[Husky51]

I will say one thing about whether a human life is more important that an animals...

 

YES it is with no question or argument. And if animals are used to determine whether a new drug or treatment is safe to use on a human, then YES again.

 

IMO, NO animal life is more important than a human's.

 

Others may (and probably will) disagree, but that is their right. Just as I have a right to my opinion and I have given it...

[andromedae]

I don't think it's about who is more important than who, but rather the importance of coexisting in relative peace, without humans neither destroying each other (which we are doing) nor ripping apart the lives of innocent animals, be it from deforestation, hunting, contamination, or any other ugly thing the human race has already caused. I'd donate to both causes, because they deserve love equally, making the world a better place is important in general, and in every aspect possible.

Edited March 30, 2016 by andromedae

[IlaQuickel]

I don't think it's about who is more important than who, but rather the importance of coexisting in relative peace, without humans neither destroying each other (which we are doing) nor ripping apart the lives of innocent animals, be it from deforestation, hunting, contamination, or any other ugly thing the human race has already caused. I'd donate to both causes, because they deserve love equally, making the world a better place is important in general, and in every aspect possible.

This. Humans are in the animal kingdom too, so yeah. Both need to be loved and cared about.

[yamashta]

I personally see animals as more important than humans, seeing as humans are massively destructive to the environment which ultimately affects not only humans but animals as well, which means everything, not just one or the other.

 

Another thing is that without humans, many harmful/invasive species would not have been so easily introduced to places where they do not belong/did not originate from. Rats, rabbits, asian long-horned beetle, a variety of diseases, etc.

 

Humans are responsible for the extinction of a variety of creatures, the excessive breeding of a variety of animals that have lead to issues such as an over abundance of waste/methane gas/etc., humans are responsible for the mass pollution of waters, the creation of unnatural substances used in the creation of things that are not biodegradable. Humans are responsible for the discover, production and usage of nuclear power.

 

If humans had stuck to living simply- closer to our 'primitive' ancestors, or at least if we had stuck to certain ways rather than advance in them, the world would probably be in much better condition.

 

As awful as it is, in my opinion humans have ultimately brought desolation and death unto themselves. Unintentionally, but all the same, it's a thing.

 

Many animals suffer similarly to humans, though it is not because of what they've done to the environment to influence this, but because of what humans have done to it.

[tresha]

I think all animals are important. Humans are also animals but highest form of animals. For, humans are sentient, vegetative and reproductive.

[wonderwanders2]

A lot of charities spend an awful lot of their money / effort on advertising, sending out mailings, calling for donations, and paying their large staffs (and supervisors, and CEOs) to better create and distribute their message, "Save the...(Whatever...)... Give Us $$$!"

It's actually really depressing how small a percentage of fundraising needs to go to the actual cause for an organization to count as a "nonprofit charity".

 

Personally I'd rather skip the middle man and do things directly to benefit others.

 

Want to feed the hungry? Make a sandwich, throw in an apple, and a juice. Toss it all into a paper bag and give it to the homeless guy who sits at the corner, you know the one you drive past on the way to work?

 

Or if you'd rather help animals... go buy some catfood or dogfood. Drop it off at the local animal shelter. Add some of your old towels or blankets to the donation - they appreciate that too. And if you want a pet... adopt!

 

Now admittedly, if you're bound and determined to donate to a cause that's not in your part of the world, (Save the Pandas, for example) you'll probably have to go through a charity, but I bet no matter where a person lives if they look around they'll find no shortage of local stuff they can help out with. Be it a food pantry with a church, a wetland restoration project for a nearby park, or a no-kill animal shelter.

[Blueocean]

So... I'm just going to throw this out there to bring in another perspective... are you more for protecting endangered species, or against acts terrorism (think ISIS and other terrorist organizations that are "thinning out the population")?

 

Many people on here have said that they think humans are over populating the world, or are nothing but animals with a high level of consciousness. Does that hold true when it is our own species that is being killed off?

Or... let me ask it this way. Would you donate to a war on terror, or to an organization that promises to maintain natural habitat for endangered species?

 

*grabs popcorn & sits back to await responses*

[NotBambi]

So... I'm just going to throw this out there to bring in another perspective... are you more for protecting endangered species, or against acts terrorism (think ISIS and other terrorist organizations that are "thinning out the population")?

 

Many people on here have said that they think humans are over populating the world, or are nothing but animals with a high level of consciousness. Does that hold true when it is our own species that is being killed off?

Or... let me ask it this way. Would you donate to a war on terror, or to an organization that promises to maintain natural habitat for endangered species?

 

*grabs popcorn & sits back to await responses*

There's already a lot of funding for wars. On terror and similar BS. Did we forget already all the taxpayers money wasted on Iraq by GWB?

Personally I prefer the endangered species option.

[Blueocean]

There's already a lot of funding for wars. On terror and similar BS. Did we forget already all the taxpayers money wasted on Iraq by GWB?

Personally I prefer the endangered species option.

There's also already a lot of funding for saving animals. Are you saying that it's a waste to protect innocent civilians from those who want to murder them for no better reason than a difference in religion? (I'm not saying that all the money spent on the war in Iraq was wisely spent, but then again, when you donate to animal rescue funds, you're frequently donating first to the cost of advertising funds, and salaries of those who run the organizations.)

[DragonNighthowler]

So... I'm just going to throw this out there to bring in another perspective... are you more for protecting endangered species, or against acts terrorism (think ISIS and other terrorist organizations that are "thinning out the population")?

 

Many people on here have said that they think humans are over populating the world, or are nothing but animals with a high level of consciousness. Does that hold true when it is our own species that is being killed off?

Or... let me ask it this way. Would you donate to a war on terror, or to an organization that promises to maintain natural habitat for endangered species?

 

*grabs popcorn & sits back to await responses*

That humans are animals is nothing but a fact. I don't know what's wrong about that. Denying a fact would be like denying that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

 

That humans are in a state of overpopulation is more debatable and depends on the scientist who you ask. A demographer the likes of Paul Ehrlich will probably tell you we are overpopulated, while others might tell you the Earth is capable of sustaining a couple thousand million more humans. My opinion on the matter is that I digress.

 

That said, I am totally and completely against culling any animal specie because of overpopulation, so I am against any faction that advocates terror and open war on humans or other specie for that matter. We do not need to go such (close to breaking Godwin's Third Law) extremes just because we aknowledge a certain fact or possible truth. There are greys between black and white, and I have always advocated for science, knowledge, education, sustainability and seeking for a more integrating way of life, renewable resources, not overfishing and hunting only that which we must eat, an ethic treatment of consumption animals, veganism is a perfectly reasonable option, etc. We need to try and coexist with our other animal specie peers, that is the only reasonable and humane approach.

 

Why would I defend one animal's life and condemn another animal's life?

 

And why do I have to choose? Why can't I be both against terrorism and in favor of protecting certain species? I mean, I don't get it. Why are this options somewhat exclusive? That's like saying that if I like fried eggs I can't possibly enjoy a chocolate cake, doesn't make any sense. Altruism does not have a hierarchy. Just because you might be advocating for the LGBT collective right of marriage, it doesn't mean somehow you're not capable of fighting against the hunger in Africa. I mean, I am the secretary in an association that strives for the protection of the wolf in the whole territory, and yet every few months, when I can, I will buy food for the needy that I readily donate to a charity. Why do some people find it so difficult to understand that, just because you fight for one cause, it doesn't mean you aren't fighting or helping in another, more human related cause.

 

Are you saying that it's a waste to protect innocent civilians from those who want to murder them...

 

This is a topic for another debate but... have you guys considered that, maybe, we don't want some other country's intervention? That maybe we're actually doing fine? My country suffered terrorism for many years. Night 2000 innocent lives were lost to these people. Even when I had to look under the car, since I lived in a high risk area, I would have never wished for the USA's help. The bombing would have been way worse than what these people were doing to us.

Edited April 20, 2016 by DragonNighthowler

[NotBambi]

There's also already a lot of funding for saving animals. Are you saying that it's a waste to protect innocent civilians from those who want to murder them for no better reason than a difference in religion? (I'm not saying that all the money spent on the war in Iraq was wisely spent, but then again, when you donate to animal rescue funds, you're frequently donating first to the cost of advertising funds, and salaries of those who run the organizations.)

No, I'm saying that innocent civilians do not get protected by wars on terror or similar. Actually, thanks to the "war on terror" in Iraq, thousands and thousands of innocent civilians got killed.

I'm perfectly ok if my contributions go to advertising and salaries of the people running animal rescue funds.

And I've two words for you: "Cheney" and "Halliburton".

[Nine]

That said, I am totally and completely against culling any animal specie because of overpopulation[...]

Why's that?

 

If, for example, an environment has been altered so that there is no predator of deer, and this leads to overpopulation, reducing the number of deer is the only way to continue to preserve what's left of the ecosystem, right?

 

There's also already a lot of funding for saving animals.

Very much depends on what animal you're talking about. Pandas? Sure, they rake in the cash thanks to tourism, popularity, Chinese national symbolism, merchandising, and so on. A bit unrelated, but it's my belief that pandas are not in real danger of extinction at all; they're far too valuable to ecotourism for humans to allow that to happen. Wild populations I could see going extinct. Kind of how the axolotl is now likely extinct in the wild, but still sold as pets.

 

Anywho, there are many listed endangered/threatened creatures that receive less than $100 a year to the research and preservation of their species (a lot of fish, amphibians, mollusks, etc.). And that's from figures in U.S funding. It's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that many countries don't invest any money to a lot of their native wildlife. Large swaths of species have gone extinct with little to no recognition by the public or otherwise. Saying there's a lot of funding for saving animals is highly variable.

[Obscure_Trash]

While I understand how the questions could have been on topic, I believe "terrorism vs animal welfare" it to be an unnecessary comparison and false equivalence. The terrorism discussion belongs elsewhere. The discussion of capitalism's allotment of money belongs elsewhere. If you want to start a debate thread where people must choose between supporting one cause or another, that would be fine. Any further posts continuing the discussion in this thread will be considered spam. Edited April 20, 2016 by SockPuppet Strangler

[DragonNighthowler]

Why's that?

 

Because there are other ways of working around this problem without necessarily going around killing arbitrarily. If an ecosystem's super predator has been eliminated, reintroducing said predator is not only the best approach, it is also more efficient than throwing hunters in the field to go about killing. In the example concerning deer and wolves, wolves not affect the population with reducing their numbers. The interaction wolves have with deer affects the whole system in a way humans can't possibly reproduce.

 

http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/Rip..._BioConserv.pdf

 

In a certain region in my country there was an overpopulation of moles. Everything was attempted, from burning the fields, drowning them, poisoning them, and all was futile. The thing that eventually worked was reintroducing prey birds, and the problem was solved within a year.

 

Another way that has been on the works to control overpopulation of cat colonies is sterilizing a certain number of cats to keep the numbers under control. This serves two ways, it avoids cats being taken to the pound to be euthanized, and the cats serve as controllers for pests such as roaches, mice and rats. In several cities there has been an experiment going on to chemically sterilize pidgeons, and so far the results have seemed favorable although more research has to be done here.

 

I am not against hunting to eat. I have nothing against hunters. I am not too happy about trophy hunting but that's a different story that is for another debate. I am aware that there might be situations where that's the only possible solution, but if there is a way to work around overpopulations problems in a more humane way, we should try that first, leaving the culling only for when there is absolutely no other option or other options have been tried and failed.

 

Killing will not solve the problem unless you solve what has caused the overpopulation in the first place, which usually is the extermination of top predators. Killing is like trying to lower the fever without tackling what's causing the infection in the first place, it'll make you feel better for a while but it won't cure the disease. If killing senseless was what caused the problem in the first place, how can we advocate for more killing to be the solution? And if we believe that's the solution... what happens with us and out 7 billion numbers?

 

We don't have infrared vision, we can't smell like wolves, we don't have claws or fangs. Evolution gifted us with a very advance cognitive ability. I say let's use that.

Edited April 20, 2016 by DragonNighthowler

[Nine]

Take it to PM. <-- ??

 

Because there are other ways of working around this problem without necessarily going around killing arbitrarily. If an ecosystem's super predator has been eliminated, reintroducing said predator is not only the best approach, it is also more efficient than throwing hunters in the field to go about killing. In the example concerning deer and wolves, wolves not affect the population with reducing their numbers. The interaction wolves have with deer affects the whole system in a way humans can't possibly reproduce.

Reintroduction takes a lot of time, money, organization, planning, and legal work before it can be successfully implemented, however. In the meantime, you need to have some way of keeping balance. In large enough numbers, many species of deer will overbrowse the environment to the point it no longer can support any population, leading to mass starvation and long-lasting habitat degradation. It's not arbitrary killing if it serves an important purpose.

 

In a perfect world, we'd be able to immediately transplant/reintroduce native species to fill the missing niches we created, but the process truly can take a long time. Reducing numbers of animals via hunting/culling helps keep the environment healthy long enough to fulfill those eventual plans. You're allowing the take of 50 individuals to preserve the entire population and future generations.

 

The cat example is interesting to me, since many island chains have suffered from the introduction of feral cats: they kill enormous amounts of native animals, are prolific breeders, and displace many species. While it would be nice to think spaying and neutering them would fix the problem, it doesn't-- to protect endangered birds, lizards, amphibians, and so on, the cats needs to be completely eradicated. There is no viable solution to this other than killing them. It's unfortunate as it's not the cats' fault they're doing their natural thing, but there is no alternative in these situations. Spaying would not prevent the cats from killing wildlife, capturing and shipping them out would be an enormous sink of money, time, effort, and there is not guarantee they'd even go to homes. The same thing is being done for rats, feral goats/sheep, mice... killing those populations is absolutely necessary to save island species.

 

Regarding human overpopulation, let's just say my very unpopular opinion is that we shouldn't be so focused on eradicating diseases, bacteria, viruses. It's going to create something a lot worse than Ebola =p

 

This is heading more off topic than I intended, haha, so apologizes and I'll stop here =o

Edited April 20, 2016 by Nine

[DragonNighthowler]

You bring some very valid points, Nine. I admit I have nothing to counter argument.

 

I would love if you could expand in the point about the humans erradicating diseases and bringing something worse, through PM if it must. I'm very interested in your opinion.

 

I'll stop too as to not deviate from the main point of the topic, which is after all other animal species vs human beings. I stand my point that, by being animals ourselves, the division between humans and animals is wrong. The moment we accept we're nothing but the result of millions of years of evolutionary luck, that our superior intellect is nothing but our mayor adaptation, as scenting and resistance is for wolves (taking it to a ridiculously simple level), then we will understand that there is not any hierarchy where one animal is more important than the other. Rather there is a machinery, like the engine of a car, where each gear, each part works differently but in the end the whole of them working at the same time is what keeps the machine going. Take one piece out, the machine will be damaged. Some pieces in the engine are more relevant to the machine than others, their dissapearance causes more problems for the machine, and yet, even the smallest part will eventually bring the whole thing crashing down.

 

How can we claim humans to be more important than other animal species, or other species for that matter? We feed on their meat, milk, and eggs. We raise fruit trees and crops that need pollinizators like bees. Birds control the pests that eat our crops. We breathe the oxygen that plants synthesize. We need them in every aspect of our existence, and yet we're somehow more important?

[Ribombee]

I most frequently donate to causes which help animals. It's my money. No one has a right to tell me how to spend it. I am spending it on a worthy cause instead of on myself, and honestly, I think it is extremely selfish of anyone else to tell me that my charity is not good enough because it isn't what they would donate to. Humans and animals are both important. We are killing our environment, and the 'sickness' is, in turn, killing us. Unless the money is not actually going where I think it is (in which case, I do hope someone tells me so I can donate to a better charity, as I know many are bad about that), whatever someone wants to donate to is their priority. If it is a worthy cause, it is a worthy cause. Is donating money to a cause which will help children more worthy than donating money to a cause which will help the elderly? Maybe we should stop donating to cure breast cancer because children don't (usually) get breast cancer. We all value what we value, and because of our differences, many different charities can receive much-needed funding. It's essentially like arguing that the only good career choice is to be a doctor, firefighter, etc. because you'll save lives. Forget farmers, scientists, engineers, architechts, etc.

 

There's already a lot of funding going to humans, too. The argument that there is already a lot of funding going toward animals is essentially like saying, "There's already a lot of funding going toward humans, so we shouldn't spend any money on one specific group of humans, even though they are in dire need." Charismatic animals which most people find to be cute and cuddly or cool get the majority of funding. Meanwhile, I am an entomologist. I say the word "wasp" and people scream and tell me how much they hate wasps. I ask if they hate bees. Many suddenly pop up then and tell me no, they like pollinators because they are useful, but wasps are not. Wrong. WRONG. WRONG. Wasps pollinate a large number of plants, including some of the plants we eat. Recently, researchers found the venom of a particular wasp selectively kills cancer cells. It's currently being studied for curing cancer. Imagine if we had let this wasp go extinct because it "wasn't important enough" to be conserved? Humans kill off unimaginable numbers of species without ever knowing their role in the environment until it's too late.

 

Flies are also important pollinators, but you don't generally see anyone picketing for the conservation of flies. Without a tiny fly called the 'chocolate midge', we would not have chocolate. Think about that. NO CHOCOLATE WITHOUT FLIES. We have very little funding going toward invertebrates, despite the fact that they make up the vast majority of animals and are scientifically arguably the most important. Ants. Everyone hates them, right? Maybe it's time to rethink them. Ants turn more soil than earthworms so are better for plants. Ants distribute seeds, playing a vital role in the ecosystem in this respect. They are also very important nutrient cyclers, breaking down nutrients and getting them to a form which is usable again. Same with cockroaches. Most of our pest species are invasive and don't belong where they are causing the problems. In their native environments, cockroaches are invaluable to the ecosystem, and if they are eliminated, it could cause a catastrophic collapse of said ecosystem.

 

Even if science doesn't know of any benefit a species provides to humans, that does not mean there is not one. Science is the body of current knowledge. It's only recently that we discovered how incredibly important bacteria are to nearly all life from algae to fungi to plants to animals to humans. Bacteria. Things most people don't give a passing thought to, other than to try to kill. For that matter, even if there is NO benefit to humans, does that truly mean the life is less important than ours? Thinking outside the human perspective, no, it is not. Every species is trying to survive, thrive, and reproduce.

 

That being said, I do think it is rather callous to say humans should die. We should work on reducing our impact on our planet and on reducing our population through fewer births, yes, but to say people who are already living should die for no other reason than they are a burden on the planet is pretty harsh.

Edited April 22, 2016 by harlequinraven