Are humans more important than animals?

[jaylynn]

I don't know. Which is higher in the food population? Well thats obvious. I'd say niether is less important.

[Crisis]

Humans are the only species on this earth capable of destroying this planet. But we are also the only ones capable of saving it in an emergency situation. Take this, for example--if scientists detected an asteroid on course with earth that would hit the planet in 40 years and destroy all life, could the tigers save us? Could the dolphins save us? Could they have even detected the asteroid in the first place? No.

Anyone else think of the movie Armegedon?

[Kai]

Preventing death is only worthwhile if that indirectly prevents birth, for example by increasing socio economic status. Increasing population decreases quality of life for basically everybody.

[TikindiDragon]

Humans are the only species on this earth capable of destroying this planet. But we are also the only ones capable of saving it in an emergency situation. Take this, for example--if scientists detected an asteroid on course with earth that would hit the planet in 40 years and destroy all life, could the tigers save us? Could the dolphins save us? Could they have even detected the asteroid in the first place? No.

See Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy. So long and thanks for all the fish.

 

And, as it happens, by the common test for sapience there *are* actualy sapient animals. Self-awareness is usualy considered to be the foundation of sapience, and mirror tests have so far suggested that some apes, elephants, bottlenose dolphins and magpies posess self-awareness. It may, thus, be argued that these species at least *are* sapient.

 

Animals do suffer mentally - it's not just a pain thing. If you believe they have *no* capacity for mental suffering then you've obviously had very, very little to do with animals in the course of your life. I've seen animals grieve. I've seen people lose hand-rear animals because, without mum, the babies simply didn't have the will to live. I've also sat awake through the night with a badly injured animal, knowing that my mere company was helping to give it the strength to pull through. If they didn't have a mental element to their suffering, their pain, and their experience of life then none of that would matter.

[grimace]

Humans are the only species on this earth capable of destroying this planet.

Bees could do a pretty decent job of it, if somehow they decided to attack everything and then kill themselves. They'd wipe out most humans and animals at least. (Not that that would happen, just sayin.)

 

@TikindiDragon: Agreed on the mental suffering thing. All it takes to understand that, is to see what parrots will do if someone gets one and isolates it.

 

I've even seen fish that do into a depressive cycle after a tankmate has died.

Edited November 21, 2010 by grimace

[lightbird]

Adding to this, one school friend had a rat and a budgie. When the rat died from some illness, the budgie spent days lurking around the rat's cage, searching for it.

[Sir Barton]

I'd much rather give money to animals. People give money to humans all the time. The difference between humans and animals is simple, humans are overpoplulated when compared to animals so they can pretty much choose to do what they want with any animal and the animals can't do anything about it because they are outnumbered by humans.

 

Think about it this way, you donate money to humans so they can be fed and get it job, and you donate money to animals so they can be fed and taken care of. A year later the same humanoide you payed for may still not have a job but benefit from your food, and the animal you payed for may be fed and live in a survivable enclosure.

Actually it seems to me that people give money to animal rescue groups and such far more then they give to other humans.

 

I don't understand why this has to be a zero sum issue. This year I will most likely donate some bags of food to the local animal shelter for Christmas but I'm also going to adopt an elderly person in an attempt to make their holiday a little better. To me if I had to chose that old person is more important then an animal for the simple reason that people will go out of their way to protect and support an animal but they ignore the person who lives next door and needs help. Just from my experiences of course.

 

 

Edit: And I would recommend that people focus on the environment instead of the individual species. Save the tiger's habitat and that will go much further towards saving the species. Repairing and protecting the environment benefits all animals including us.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Sir Barton

[lightbird]

Edit: And I would recommend that people focus on the environment instead of the individual species. Save the tiger's habitat and that will go much further towards saving the species. Repairing and protecting the environment benefits all animals including us.

If often is like that, that the aim to preserve a whole habitat is wrapped in the commercial tag with an attractive species on it. I believe that for many people "save the tiger!" or "save the blue whale!" just rings a louder bell than "save the tundra!" etc.

[Sir Barton]

True but that tends to lead towards shortsightedness and complacency in the support/donor. "I'm saving a wolf." No, most likely your money is paying the salary of someone working for the charity corporation or at best advertising to garner more support. Save the Whales actually is a good one because that tends to lead to people supporting groups like the Sea Shepherds who dump toxins into the ocean and cut long lines and let them drift freely where they cause harm/death to sea life. Their form of "saving" has the potential to cause much more damage then whaling itself.

 

Funny thing is groups that seem to do the most for helping wildlife by raising money to purchase and protect habitat are hunting groups like Ducks Unlimited, The Wild Turkey Fed., The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Boone and Crockett Club Foundation. Most "save the animals" people that I know wouldn't think of supporting such groups and in turning their back on them they do a great disservice to the wildlife they wish to protect. That's a real pity.

 

Not that they are the best choice by far but people would do better supporting someone like The Sierre Club then something like "Save the Tiger." Over the years I've given money to just about every animal group that came along, including PETA and the AHS sadly, but then I started looking at what my money was being used for. Very little went towards saving habitat or the wildlife in question. Granted I won't send money to the starving children in Africa either since those funds go astray and we have enough starving children/families here in my country that need my help. The extinction of tigers would be terrible but death of a person down the street is far worse.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Sir Barton

[marhawkman]

True but that tends to lead towards shortsightedness and complacency in the support/donor. "I'm saving a wolf." No, most likely your money is paying the salary of someone working for the charity corporation or at best advertising to garner more support. Save the Whales actually is a good one because that tends to lead to people supporting groups like the Sea Shepherds who dump toxins into the ocean and cut long lines and let them drift freely where they cause harm/death to sea life. Their form of "saving" has the potential to cause much more damage then whaling itself.

 

Funny thing is groups that seem to do the most for helping wildlife by raising money to purchase and protect habitat are hunting groups like Ducks Unlimited, The Wild Turkey Fed., The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Boone and Crockett Club Foundation. Most "save the animals" people that I know wouldn't think of supporting such groups and in turning their back on them they do a great disservice to the wildlife they wish to protect. That's a real pity.

 

Not that they are the best choice by far but people would do better supporting someone like The Sierre Club then something like "Save the Tiger." Over the years I've given money to just about every animal group that came along, including PETA and the AHS sadly, but then I started looking at what my money was being used for. Very little went towards saving habitat or the wildlife in question. Granted I won't send money to the starving children in Africa either since those funds go astray and we have enough starving children/families here in my country that need my help. The extinction of tigers would be terrible but death of a person down the street is far worse.

TRUTH!

 

Wildlife conservation groups get the most done because they spend their time working towards the goal directly, not ranting at anyone who will listen. also a lot of groups are one step short of terrorists.

[Ilera]

I put more value on a human life than a life from another species, yes. Why? Because I'm human, and I'm not BSing myself nor anybody else about how responsible and savvy to the evils of man I am. I think it's ridiculous, and rather self-deceiving, to think otherwise. Humans are a species like any other whose evolutionary advantage comes from their intelligence. Let's get some perspective, why don't we.

 

From an objective perspective, a human is a sort of clever animal, and is worth no more than any other life.

 

From a pragmatic perspective, the rest of the world could get on fine without the entire human species, just as the rest of the world could get on fine without some other species. If one species of cat were wiped out, the mouse population wouldn't grow out of control because mice don't have only one predator. Humans don't really have any predators because we are smart and can use tools, and thus live at the top of the pyramid. Removing us wouldn't be nearly as disastrous as removing the bottom--say, the sun, or the grass.

 

From a tiger's perspective, a world without humans would be great, because humans wouldn't be hunting tigers, and the most important thing is tigers, not humans.

 

Any species would think this way. Except humans, because we're smart enough to learn how to BS ourselves.

 

From a human's perspective, minus the BS, a world without humans would suck because there'd be no humans in it. We can't escape the human perspective. Lightbird mentioned something similar. We can disguise it in a load of BS and pretend that we can, but we can't. We can invent concepts like 'responsibility' to make the world more orderly, and dress things up all nice to make it look like we're something besides another sort of species, but that's all BS really. Invented for our convenience. Great for not killing everything on the planet, but aggravating when people start accidentally thinking it's actually true.

 

But no. We're a sort of animal who got smart enough to fool itself into thinking otherwise. So I choose to skip the BS and realize that we're no different, and ought to look after ourselves first, and stop being so bloody arrogant about it. We need to stop looking at it like 'Humans and Animals' and start looking at it like 'This species and this species and humans and this species'. As for the rest of the world, that why we invented responsibility.

[toxicneon]

Animals > Humans

 

I'm not going to type up a huge essay why. Just look at the world around you and you'll see what I mean.

[Pikafuey]

I don't think so. I feel that every creature on this Earth is equal. And that whole "we're smarter" crap is bogus to me. A life is a life in my opinion.

[Kai]

I don't think so. I feel that every creature on this Earth is equal. And that whole "we're smarter" crap is bogus to me. A life is a life in my opinion.

Then you are in debt several billion bacteria lives.

[happyclover68]

You should try to help humans and other animals. But think about this, what have we done *beneficial" for the Earth? Sure, humans set up projects to clean up our world, but we were the ones who got it polluted in the first place. We were the ones who killed tigers (my fav animal) for fur and stuff, so shouldn't we try to prevent their extinction? Also, there are a lot of humans on the Earth. We over run it like cockroaches. Maybe that means that there should be less of us. Of course, we could prevent overpopulation by abortions and birth control, but some religious folks choose not to.

[Passii]

Knowing myself, I definitely find it that we are both equally important. And by standards, aren't we technically animals?

We all share most of the same things, except our complex minds are stronger than theirs. But how does that make us 'important'?

 

As we might be destroying the planet than more by helping it, there is a cycle to why everything is here.

 

People might ask- why are sharks here? All they do is kill us.

Most definitely not true, they feed on various kinds of fish so they don't over populate.

 

And those fish feed on other fish so THEY don't populate.

 

And THOSE fish feed on fungi, moss, and underwater plantations so that doesn't populate.

 

Same thing with... spiders.

Spiders trap flies,

and flies eat... well anything they can get their hands on.

 

So everything on this earth has been put here for a reason.

So without tigers,

then wouldn't it's pray overpopulate? So they are extremely important in my opinion. Yet I say humans are important too, just if we died out, other animals would take over for us and set the world back in place.

[Syaoransbear]

You should try to help humans and other animals. But think about this, what have we done *beneficial" for the Earth?

Plastic?

 

There's also some religious people who think having as many kids as possible is God's will. That '19 Kids and Counting' show makes me sick.

 

The population definitely needs to be a lot lower, but I don't think it would turn out well for there to be the same population rules as there are in china, but maybe there can be lots of anti-baby propaganda to convince people not to have children.

 

Like, GET A VASECTOMY: WIN A CAR! or something.

[Passii]

The population definitely needs to be a lot lower, but I don't think it would turn out well for there to be the same population rules as there are in china, but maybe there can be lots of anti-baby propaganda to convince people not to have children.

I so agree. Maybe we should just ship some people to not so populated places... like Wyoming for example, theres about 530,000 people living there now. And in states five times it's size, there are about 8,724,560 people (in New Jersey).

 

So in a way, we can find a place for people... but not for long I can sadly say.

[Team EG-X]

Well, since I can't post my argument here without seeming like a total lunatic, I'll just say that yeah, animals > people.

 

People, as a species, are stupid and destructive... But yeah, they don't really help anything.

[marhawkman]

Hehe... some of you guys sound like you should sign up for the voluntary human extinction movement.

[Kestra15]

Yes.

[Vexx]

Hehe... some of you guys sound like you should sign up for the voluntary human extinction movement.

-raises hand- Part of that myself.

[Draco Knight]

Working in a gift shop at a state park, I'm privileged to see how many people view helping animals vs. helping humans. In the winter where I work is a refuge for West Indian Manatees in Florida.

 

A portion of all our profits goes back to the Park Fund, and as a result the prices for souvenirs can be a little high. Used to be when a customer asked after a particularly high price I would tell the total truth, "A portion of all our profits goes into the Park Fund, and that money is used to help State Parks." A few would nod their heads and go ahead and buy it, but I noticed a lot more would just put the item back.

 

I started switching it up, when asked about prices now I don't mention the Park Fund anymore, "A portion of all our profits benefits the Manatees." Which isn't a lie, but it's not the whole truth either. A lot more people not only buy the item they asked about, they generally buy more stuff than they intended.

 

"Buy that item, help your state parks" doesn't bring in nearly as much money as "Buy that item, help a manatee." I think people associated the 'Park Fund' with people.

[TMockingbird]

I (think) I'm going against the grain here and saying Animals < People.

 

Animals are cute and lovable and all.

 

But you can't hanky panky with an animal...Or party with an animal..(though you can party /like/ an animal)...Or go to the clubs..or a bar...or even a museum with an animal....

 

As a human being, I'm looking for companionship with things I can talk to first and foremost. Animals are secondary.

 

Or if you do? you have serious problems, kay?

 

However, I'm for a certain amount of animal rights thgouh...such as I'm against "sport hunting" ....I see an except though if one plans on using every blankin' part of the animal they kill.

 

Oh..and I'm against exotic furs..

 

and poaching...

 

In all honest, I find it a little twisted and sick (not in a good way) to value an animal's life more than a human's...if you do value an animal's life more..do us all a favor..go live in the woods with your animal friends :l

 

I mean seriously..without human progress there's be no modern conveniences that you all harp on..there's be NO dragcave.

 

I really hope most of you are joking .____.

 

I do, however, agree on that popluation needs to stop increasing.

 

Contraceptives world-wide, plox?

 

and I also admit..I dislike kids/babies (human kids/babies)...working at a daycare does that to you...but I still think that they could perhaps do something worthwhile in their life besides poop, eat, and continue life's cycle.

[Vexx]

But you can't hanky panky with an animal...Or party with an animal..(though you can party /like/ an animal)...Or go to the clubs..or a bar...or even a museum with an animal....

I don't drink. I don't go clubbing. I can go to a museum well enough by myself and I don't plan on 'hanky panky' with the whole human race. :l I get anxiety in a lot of social situations like parties and whatnot, I'd prefer to just have a nice evening with the one human being I really do care about.

 

Animals don't stab you in the back. Animals don't make you feel like a worthless person any chance they can get. Animals don't judge you at every turn.

I'm more likely to hate a human being than an animal. :l Pure and simple. Not sure about living with the animals, but I would enjoy getting the hell away from people.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Vexx