Are humans more important than animals?

[MedievalMystic]

The most worthless human beings...rapists, murderers, serial killers, child abusers, animal abusers, heads of big corporations that sanction poisoning the planet for profit, furriers, hard core drug addicts, etc, etc, etc....can all go to hell and rot before I'd give them a drop of water if they were dieing of thirst. I'm with the animals all the way, not our sorry excuse for a species. Do I believe in helping the poor and those really in need? Of course.

[XLaurentX]

Animals, in my eyes, are more important than humans...

 

They can live without us but we can't live without them

[Fabulo]

The most worthless human beings...rapists, murderers, serial killers, child abusers, animal abusers, heads of big corporations that sanction poisoning the planet for profit, furriers, hard core drug addicts, etc, etc, etc....can all go to hell and rot before I'd give them a drop of water if they were dieing of thirst. I'm with the animals all the way, not our sorry excuse for a species. Do I believe in helping the poor and those really in need? Of course.

Sure thing. Sadly, those humans usually prosper without any help from our side. Those who realy need help... are much different. We are talking about charity, right?

[crazywargod]

I believe animals are more deserving of humans because their problems are caused by US. We are making them suffer so it is our job to stop that suffering.

 

 

Not to say there aren't some human charities that I would donate to. I would probable give to help-to-find-the-cure charities andthe like but animals are more deserving.

[AngelKitty]

To my mind, everyone who desperately needs help should be given it, and I see your point of view, even though I would rather save the most worthless human being than a godly beast.

 

I'm curious about your definition of "worthless." Do you mean people who others consider worthless because they're homeless/insane/whatever, or the truly and honestly despicable?

 

Would you save, for example, a child rapist before you'd save your own dear pet or one of the last surviving members of a species from a fire?

[Eluin Gentry]

I do want to preface this by saying that I am not completely a crazy person. About 99.5% maybe, but not all the way there yet. If I had to make a choice between saving a litter of kittens and saving a human child, I'd save the human child every time. Why? Because I believe all life is precious, but human lives do come first.

I follow a spiritual walk that says that all life is sacred, no matter how complex it may be. I don't relate well to other humans all of the time. If I'm going to volunteer, it will be with animals. If I'm going to donate money, it will be to the animals. My goal is to run a small animal rescue out of my home at some point in the future. I don't have many rescues right now, 4 foster rats and one rescued off of Craigslist, 3 rats rescued from a bad petstore. I have two cats, both taken in as kittens from people too stupid to understand why they should spay/neuter their animals. I'd have more but Boyfriend said no. He says there is enough crazy in my house.

I have worked bottle feeding orphaned raccoons. I'd like to do it again as soon as I can afford to have my own property. I live on a farm right now, but it is a rental and my landlord is not fond of raccoons. Actually they'd like me to get rid of all of the animals, but that is never going to happen. My cats are my spoiled rotten babies. If they get rehomed, I'd better be dead because it would break my big cat's heart. She loves me unconditionally and would not understand why she had to leave.

I am working on getting a part time job volunteering in a vet clinic. I want to bottle feed again, probably kittens or puppies since my landlord would find those LESS objectionable. Any spare money I have goes to feed my rats and to try and save so I can open a proper rescue. Northern Michigan, where I am located, does not have a small animal rescue. Our shelter doesn't take anything but cats and dogs and pocket pet owners are expected to find their own way of dealing with excess rodents, rabbits, and other small animals. The nearest rescue that I know of that would take any of these guys is over 2 hours away. If someone doesn't want their rat here, I doubt they are going to take responsibility to get them to a proper rescue. The ones I got off of CraigsList were due to be dumped in the snow in a week if they weren't adopted.

Animals don't chose to be neglected. Look into a dog's eyes. They may not understand more than a few words we say to them, but there is a trust there that doesn't need words. That dog doesn't understand why its owner makes it fight, beats it when it is "bad", chains it in the front yard for days on end, or just dumps it at the shelter when they get bored with it. Animals are like babies. Perfect love and perfect trust that doesn't need words to convey it.

So yeah. My money goes to the animals. So does my time and my heart. And it always will. They didn't ask for this cruel world we've made for them and they certainly don't deserve it.

 

As for the example in the first post, the tigers, I've actually tried to protest what I saw as abuse of that species in my own home town. I had to be really careful, because I was trying to stop something taking place at my own place of employment, but I did everything I could. My job decided that to celebrate Chinese New Year, they were going to bring in a company who rescues wild animals. I support that. What I did not support was one of their fundraising techniques. They bring in the youngest of the babies (still bottle feeding age) and let the public take pictures of the babies. Specifically of their children holding the babies with their bottles. We are talking tigers with full fangs and claws sitting on a child's lap with no handler in the picture. In a CASINO. I don't know if many of you have ever been in a casino, but they are loud. In fact, they have loud down to a science. All it would take is one tiger, bear, or other "dangerous" wild animal getting scared. Suddenly a child is in the hospital having its arm, leg, or lap sewn back together and an animal, whose only crime was being terrified of the sounds around it, having to be euthanized. I don't think I could have been more upset.

 

Edit: I didn't see that post directly above mine when I first posted, but I'd like to address it. I would not save the child molesters before the animals. Nor the murderers and rapists. Animals are innocent. Any choices they make (IE: biting, attacking, and so on) are products of the environment they are raised in. You beat a dog long enough, it is going to bite someone eventually. Train it to attack and you wonder why it hurts the neighbor kid? There are "dangerous" breeds out there, but they are only dangerous without proper training and discipline. Most of the dangerous pit bulls out there would have been completely different dogs with proper training and without the BYBs of the world. Good breeders will not breed an aggressive animal. Their goal is to breed a better pet/show quality dog. BYBs (or Back Yard Breeders, for those who don't recognize that term) will put any two animals together to make a profit off of their young. They don't care about breed standards or the harm they are doing to the breed as a whole.

A human adult has had a lifetime to make decisions, which we have the mental abilities to make. Many of the murderers and rapists out there are sick in some way and many of those have probably also been the product of the environment they were raised in. But they've had time and resources to seek help. And the people they've hurt don't really care about what mental deficiencies a child molester might have. If I had to run into a burning building to save either a child molester or a litter of kittens, I'd save the litter of kittens and then probably start passing out marsh mellows.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Eluin Gentry

[Kazeko]

Then how did we, not them, create language? Math, science, art................ What do we have that they don't? There must be something with our brain that is more advanced then those animals to be able to do what we do. I never specified intelligence btw.

What do we do that they don't?

 

Seriously. Advanced technology does not count; that's a very fancy sort of tool-using.

 

Then how did we, not them, create language?

 

-ahem- You think that if animals had language, they'd speak English? Chinese? Swahili? Any recognizable human language?

 

No. They have to learn those as second languages. Their own languages are so different from our own--may not even be entirely verbal--that we only recognized them as language recently by analyzing patterns.

[Fabulo]

I'm curious about your definition of "worthless." Do you mean people who others consider worthless because they're homeless/insane/whatever, or the truly and honestly despicable?

I saw someone here saying he would rather save a rare species than an "unneeded" child in a big family. That's not me; I value human life higher than of any being. And yes, by saying "worthless" I meant the homeless/insane/whatever, those who have a little impact on human society and are scorned and often considered out of society.

 

Would you save, for example, a child rapist before you'd save your own dear pet or one of the last surviving members of a species from a fire?

That's different. A rapist is surely a danger to those we are to help, and should his guilt be obvious to me, I would not save him even without such choices.

[crazywargod]

What do we do that they don't?

 

Seriously. Advanced technology does not count; that's a very fancy sort of tool-using.

 

 

 

-ahem- You think that if animals had language, they'd speak English? Chinese? Swahili? Any recognizable human language?

 

No. They have to learn those as second languages. Their own languages are so different from our own--may not even be entirely verbal--that we only recognized them as language recently by analyzing patterns.

Yes it does count. Did I not specify science, math, art. Is there not going in to space? No species on this planet can naturally go into space yet we figured how to do it.

 

Humans are a bit more complex then you are giving credit.

[Syaoransbear]

When humans need help, it's because they are either starving or in some other bad situation. Animals need help to protect them from us, because we kill them. We do not have shelters where we euthanize babies, children, adults, and seniors because there aren't enough homes for them. We do that with animals, we rip their only chance at life away from them because it's more 'humane' than living without a home, when really it's just less of a nuisance to us to have stray animals roaming. That's why I think animals are more deserving of our money. We kill them out of convenience, we aren't flat-out killing humans.

[Kazeko]

*ahem* Naturally go into space.

 

Humans can't naturally go into space. We use fancy tools to do it-- which is my point.

 

I never said humans were simple. On the contrary; I'm saying animals are complex.

 

Also: Did I explain tool-using? Humans are considered "advanced" because we rely on fancier tools than, say, a jay uses. There's no higher thought functions going into that; even less, maybe. And while we know that animals haven't invented electricity, who's to say that they don't have forms of technology and communication unrecognizable to us?

 

Leaving the realm of speculative fiction for the moment--can we prove that animals have no grasp of math? Alex the Parrot, to give a famous example, could add, subtract, divide and multiply--and this in a second language that his brain was not developed to interpret. Who can say what he could have done in his own parrot-language?

 

What about literature? For millenia, less than 10% of the world's population was literate; stories were passed down by word of mouth. That's why myths and legends take so many different forms: they were invented in a malleable, verbal medium. So, while we can say that it is likely that animals have no written language as a human would recognize it, we cannot prove that they do not have stories.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Kazeko

[crazywargod]

*ahem* Naturally go into space.

 

Humans can't naturally go into space. We use fancy tools to do it-- which is my point.

 

I never said humans were simple. On the contrary; I'm saying animals are complex.

 

Also: Did I explain tool-using? Humans are considered "advanced" because we rely on fancier tools than, say, a jay uses. There's no higher thought functions going into that; even less, maybe. And while we know that animals haven't invented electricity, who's to say that they don't have forms of technology and communication unrecognizable to us?

 

Leaving the realm of speculative fiction for the moment--can we prove that animals have no grasp of math? Alex the Parrot, to give a famous example, could add, subtract, divide and multiply--and this in a second language that his brain was not developed to interpret. Who can say what he could have done in his own parrot-language?

 

What about literature? For millenia, less than 10% of the world's population was literate; stories were passed down by word of mouth. That's why myths and legends take so many different forms: they were invented in a malleable, verbal medium. So, while we can say that it is likely that animals have no written language as a human would recognize it, we cannot prove that they do not have stories.

I never said we could. I just said we found a way. Has a monkey built a rocket to the moon? Or anything "fancy" for that matter?

 

On terms with what we have done we are far superior to animals. There is no countering that fact. Of course we are also ruthless and bloodthirsty which on a morality scale we have quite a bit to learn from animals.

 

Your going to forgo all technological achievement as fancy tools? For shame, for shame.

 

 

Even if you want to write of all achievements humans have done

ART (as you seem to skip)

SCIENCE (you also skip)

Buildings (while ants and bees are also very good at structure we are more advanced and have very complex housing.)

Us being the most advanced is not false or opinion but FACT.

[Kazeko]

Okay, Art and Science? Done. (Actually, I already have gone over science. Several times. Did you even read my post?)

 

And yes. Technology is the invention of tools. All creations of technology are tools. Fancy tools, yes, but tools all the same.

 

First of all, you have not proven to me that animals do not have science. Perhaps they're not as advanced in engineering or electronics; that doesn't mean that they're not highly advanced in psychology, mathematics, biology, or any other number of fields that do not deal in technology. Which goes back to language. We can't understand their languages, therefore we cannot evaluate their scientific advancement.

 

Art is subjective by its very nature, and the different types need to be addressed separately. Starting with music: whales sing. Not just vocalization. They rhyme, repeat phrases, make patterns. Male humpbacks, probably the best-known example, create works that are very similar to human music. Birds are also quite musical.

 

As for visual art, who can say? Most species create no visual art that a human would recognize as such, but consider the wildly varying forms of visual art created by humans. So no woodpecker has ever created the Pieta or the Mona Lisa; perhaps they consider the placing of holes in trees an art form, or the design of a nest. We can't say they create visual art for certain, but neither can we say for certain that they don't.

 

Err, fact? You have given me no proof.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Kazeko

[Saiph]

I think humans and animals should be treated as equils. Animals have feelings too and most people forget that and end up abusing them. Some people say that we're superior because of our intelligance, but that doesn't mean that people with less intelligance are inferior so why would it matter with an animal?

[Eluin Gentry]

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams

 

Just because we have achieved different things with a brain capable of different things doesn't mean that we are better or worse than the animals. They communicate, not in a way that we call language with what we know as words, but if you've ever talked to your cat (and I should know, I do it ALL THE TIME) you'll see that they think a lot of our words are stupid and by association we are stupid and we should probably just pet them instead. They don't say "Hooman, we order you to pets us" but somehow we wind up petting them anyway. Why? They got their message through. Just because we can't always understand them doesn't make their idea of language any less valid. They communicate, we communicate.

To say that animals don't have art is complete crap. Animals invented art. With no training, no prior knowledge, nothing more than instinct, they create spider webs. They have no science, yet they pollinate our flowers for us. Ant hills and bee hives are nothing but architecture. They inspire our great minds at every turn.

[RheaZen]

Dude, architecture... termite mounds are AWESOME. They're ventilated, they control the humidity and temperature... it's almost frightening how perfect it all is.

Though they've got some stuff to work on. The whole "plugging holes in the nest with our giant heads" thing doesn't cut it with humans :B

[Fabulo]

The whole "plugging holes in the nest with our giant heads" thing doesn't cut it with humans :B

I-I-I think I'll write a novel about that.

[crazywargod]

Okay, Art and Science? Done. (Actually, I already have gone over science. Several times. Did you even read my post?)

 

And yes. Technology is the invention of tools. All creations of technology are tools. Fancy tools, yes, but tools all the same.

 

First of all, you have not proven to me that animals do not have science. Perhaps they're not as advanced in engineering or electronics; that doesn't mean that they're not highly advanced in psychology, mathematics, biology, or any other number of fields that do not deal in technology. Which goes back to language. We can't understand their languages, therefore we cannot evaluate their scientific advancement.

 

Art is subjective by its very nature, and the different types need to be addressed separately. Starting with music: whales sing. Not just vocalization. They rhyme, repeat phrases, make patterns. Male humpbacks, probably the best-known example, create works that are very similar to human music. Birds are also quite musical.

 

As for visual art, who can say? Most species create no visual art that a human would recognize as such, but consider the wildly varying forms of visual art created by humans. So no woodpecker has ever created the Pieta or the Mona Lisa; perhaps they consider the placing of holes in trees an art form, or the design of a nest. We can't say they create visual art for certain, but neither can we say for certain that they don't.

 

Err, fact? You have given me no proof.

You never spoke about science. You used, minor amounts I add, to explain language.

 

 

My proof is through history. If animals are so advance, as you claim, why have they not tried to block themselves off from us? Or tried to learn human speach? God knows we've tried to learn theirs. Sure you might see technology as fancy tools but that doesn't make them any less advanced.

 

We have something they don't that allows us to do what we do. We got the good end of evolution's roulette. Weather you want to admit it of not technology alone, we have and make it they don't, proves we are superior on the brain and body end. While more fragile if a cockroach had human brain they wouldn't have the body to use it. Same with all animals minus monkeys, apes, ext..........

 

 

@Eluin Gentry: No it's not. All your examples are thing used in hunting or gathering food. While spiderwebs look cool I don't think it would work designed differently. All biological imperative. Also did I not point out ants and bees?

[Eluin Gentry]

@Eluin Gentry: No it's not. All your examples are thing used in hunting or gathering food. While spiderwebs look cool I don't think it would work designed differently. All biological imperative. Also did I not point out ants and bees?

So, to be considered art, something has to be completely useless other than to be pleasing to the eye? Because nature doesn't tend to be that wasteful. That it completely a human trait. And I don't think we get bonus points for having an ability to destroy the things around us, just because we can amass more crap than any other species. Nature has crafted beauty and function together in one graceful package. We could really learn from their example.

[TikindiDragon]

Humans are not superior to animals in every way. Call it biological imperative if you will but their sucesses in construction are infinitely greater than ours. And, after all, why do humans build things if not for shelter? It's a biological imperative for us as well, we're just not as good at it.

 

I also wouldn't call our bodies superior. Our bodies are actualy some of the worst, when you come to think about it. We're not adapted for any kind of extremes of wether or temperature (or even, if we're honest about it, exposure to minor changes in either without having to rely on clothes). We're not the strongest, or fastest, we can't jump as far, nor carry as much weight. Yes we have opposeable thumbs, which alows us to mainpulate more objects more finely, but that's the only physical thing we *are* superior in. We've *had* to use our brains to get around things simply because our bodys aren't terribly well adapted to living *without* any of it. If you were to dump us out in the wilderness, with no tools and no clothes, the vast majority of people wouldn't survive. That's *not* a note that we are superior.

 

Had it occured to you that a) animals might not *want* to communicate with us, and some of them actualy *do* communicate with us if you've spent enough time around them to make an attempt at learning *their* language ? Human speech is difficult, and requires a specialist kind of voice box. The English language specificaly is considered one of the most difficult int he world to learn. Most animals communicate primarily through body language, there's a good chance many of them don't realise that the noises we make all the time are supposed to be communication.

[crazywargod]

So, to be considered art, something has to be completely useless other than to be pleasing to the eye? Because nature doesn't tend to be that wasteful. That it completely a human trait. And I don't think we get bonus points for having an ability to destroy the things around us, just because we can amass more crap than any other species. Nature has crafted beauty and function together in one graceful package. We could really learn from their example.

I never said that. I just couldn't elaborate. (stupid PS3). You think art is a learned skill? Not really. Mastery is learned but art is a natural occurance. Even spiders and their web. They were probably taught somehow how to make the web correctly.

 

 

Sure there is quite a bit that we can learn from animals but isn't that just another thing that separates us from animals? We can learn from all different things and further ourselves with it.

 

 

But TikindiDragon that just proves my point. If we had the body of a bear our brains would be useless. If we had completely different body structures our brains would mean nothing. It doesn't matter how smart an animal may be if that intelligence can't be used. Our bodys may not be sturdy or strong but without them we would probably not have the achievements we do (unless of course it was a monkeys, apes, ext......... ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animals are so helpless and need our help. Animals are far superior to humans.

 

One statement must be false. Take your pick everybody.

[grimace]

So, to be considered art, something has to be completely useless other than to be pleasing to the eye? Because nature doesn't tend to be that wasteful. That it completely a human trait.

Meet the bowerbird.

 

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

[Eluin Gentry]

Animals are so helpless and need our help. Animals are far superior to humans.

 

One statement must be false. Take your pick everybody.

Animals need our help because we keep f-ing up their world. If we'd stop destroying their homes, killing their kind, and abusing the ones we take into our homes, they wouldn't need anything at all from us.

When the human race wipes itself out, I'm just hoping that we don't take the entire world with us. Maybe once we are gone, nature can balance the books again and start rebuilding. Far as I can see, we are renting this world and there is no way in hell we are getting our security deposit back. In fact, if I was our landlord, I'd be pretty pissed.

 

Edit: Hi Bower Bird. I like the fact that you've picked up all kinds of things that make your nest prettier. You even matched the color of your feathers perfectly! Of course, if we hadn't left all that around for you, you'd be collecting pretty rocks and leaves instead and not risking choking yourself or your babies to death on that plastic. Not really sure what point the poster was trying to prove with that picture. We littered. We are the wasteful ones. The bird is just collecting pretty things for its nest. Crows and mockingbirds do the same thing.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Eluin Gentry

[crazywargod]

Animals need our help because we keep f-ing up their world. If we'd stop destroying their homes, killing their kind, and abusing the ones we take into our homes, they wouldn't need anything at all from us.

When the human race wipes itself out, I'm just hoping that we don't take the entire world with us. Maybe once we are gone, nature can balance the books again and start rebuilding. Far as I can see, we are renting this world and there is no way in hell we are getting our security deposit back. In fact, if I was our landlord, I'd be pretty pissed.

I'm just saying if animals are so superior then their not helpless.

If the're helpless their not superior.

 

Edit:Epic grammar fail.

Edited November 19, 2010 by crazywargod

[Eluin Gentry]

I'm just saying if animals are so superior then their not helpless.

If the're helpless their not superior.

 

Edit:Epic grammar fail.

Sorry love. Nothing is that black and white. This isn't a perfect world and nothing boils down quite that easily. Your system for measuring which species is superior is flawed. If you want to see why, go have a chat with a gorilla. Tell him all about why you think your species is better because you have more tools, art forms, and a surperior language. He'll rip you in half without even thinking about it. Helpless isn't the word I'd chose.

They need our help because after that gorilla rips you in half, we'll come in with superior weapons (which I don't think makes us the superior species, just because we can kill things better and leave the bodies to rot) and wipe out not only that gorilla but every single one in the area. Then we'll whine about how they are endangered and we want them back. One of these days, we are going to go to far and not be able to bring them back. The animals will be gone and then we'll see how superior we think we are. Easy to be superior when you are completely alone.