Sure we are, that doesn't lessen our species or it's accomplishments in any way either. Not a big deal in my mind.
Are humans, animals?
- Thread starter omega 616
- Start date
Well, if you're only interested in pedantry, I should remind you that I said "transfer" and not "transmit". This should be obviously because you quoted me, substituted a different word and then made you're ridiculously stupid statement based on the word you decided to add.loc978 said:
Don't put words in my mouth, it's already full of dicks.
I think the distinction between Humans and Animals is so vast that I would say no. Of course, that lies within your own definition of animal (and I'm talking philosophy here; not English).
For me: Humans possess the ability to suppress and outright control base desires and instincts that drive the actions of animals. Now if I really wanted to get topical I would say that this is the basis behind the idea of the human soul and animals probably don't have anything similar. But this isn't exactly the religion and politics forum so I'll keep that to myself.
So, instead of using that I'll just use D&D for an argument. Every animal has a base of 1-2 INT and humanoids have a base of 10(with a point buy system in pathfinder that is). Beat that argument!
For me: Humans possess the ability to suppress and outright control base desires and instincts that drive the actions of animals. Now if I really wanted to get topical I would say that this is the basis behind the idea of the human soul and animals probably don't have anything similar. But this isn't exactly the religion and politics forum so I'll keep that to myself.
So, instead of using that I'll just use D&D for an argument. Every animal has a base of 1-2 INT and humanoids have a base of 10(with a point buy system in pathfinder that is). Beat that argument!
From Merriam-Webster:
: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.
So, uh...yeah. By the very definition of the word, and in almost every sense of the word, we are animals.
Unless we're to take this conversation into a religious or "future-view" direction, what discussion value is there?
: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.
So, uh...yeah. By the very definition of the word, and in almost every sense of the word, we are animals.
Unless we're to take this conversation into a religious or "future-view" direction, what discussion value is there?
Well...it IS a fact. Not really anything to debate about it. And no, there's not "more to the question".Caramel Frappe said:
The question was "Are humans animals?" The answer is an unequivocal "Yes". To debate otherwise, without completely altering or redefining what a human is, is the equivalent of:
Person 1: Is that a tree?
Person 2: Well, it's a maple tree, so...yeah, it's a tree.
Person 3: Yeah, but is it really a tree? I mean really, truly a tree? It's not entirely like that other tree over there, so is this maple tree really a tree?
All of which boil down to a survival instinct. The parameters have changed but in the end all of that is still methods, motives, and goals for survival.
There are vast scores of other species that stay with a single mate for their entire lives. This isn't something that's exclusive to humans.
Just because we've invented what we would consider "advanced" technology does not mean we are "more evolved" than the rest of the animal kingdom.
Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a tree. There's no specific direction or intended end goal. It's simply change over time. Change that proves either useful or useless for any given species.
Most other animals don't utilize technology; or specifically tools (Though a fair few do.); because their species simply didn't need tools to survive. Or rather, physiological changes proved more beneficial.
Tool usage proved beneficial to us, and continues to benefit our survival. There's every possibility that another species could have started using tools in a similar fashion in the past, but that usage proved to be non-beneficial, or even detrimental, to it's survival.
Asking "Why us" or thinking your innate abilities were "gifted" is assuming there was some intelligent force behind our advancement. It assumes there was some supernatural "thing" that steered us in a specific direction.
Now, that could make for an interesting topic of discussion, but in this instance it's diverging from the original question.
Not sure I buy the burying and flowers story. That sounds a bit farfetched to me. (Though I'm open to being proven wrong on it, so please point me to the story. It sounds inspiring if true.)
As for the rest, it comes, more often than not, from a natural sense of altruism and self-preservation that exist within social creatures. Caring for and protecting a member of the family unit helps keep the family unit strong; which in turn increases the likelihood of survival for each member of the unit.
I agree with most of this. Many creatures are far more intelligent than most humans give them credit for. And, most humans are far less intelligent, rational, and "advanced" than we think we are.
But as for why most humans consider themselves better than all other animals, well...it could be for any number of reasons.
Personally, I think it stems from a desire for power. Thinking of ourselves as better than everything else gives us a sense of superiority. It creates a sense of safety and control. All of which, as before, stem from a need for self-preservation.
Because why fear what you can control?
We stand on top only in the presence of our own environments; and even then we don't always have control nor the advantage. Outside our "home-turf", we're often very low on the "power ladder".
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Now, that all said, I agree that there is much to discuss about the nature of humanity. Where do we really stand in terms of "the big picture"? How far have we really come from our cave-dwelling ancestors? How much control do we honestly have over our environment and how much of it is a delusion? Is there the possibility of breaking with natural directives and controlling our own evolution?
Many things to discuss. Whether humans are animals isn't one of them.
Yes we are animals. I understand your question, but we are animals.omega 616 said:
You know it and I know it. The issue you are asking simply comes from the fact that you think we behave differently than other animals. Which is fair enough.
But let's leave that aside for a moment because you are looking at the evidence in the wrong order.
Forgetting technology and behaviour we can all agree that we are clearly animals. Therefore, all the things that we do and make are a part of animal behaviour.
Building space ships and computers is something that animals do, because our species has done it.
It really is that simple. Yes it's unusual animal behaviour, and we are the only animal we have ever discovered that has done these things, but it is nevertheless true.
That is very presumptuous. It depends on where you live as to what is hunting you. Dingos hunt human children in Australia. Cheetahs hunt humans in Africa and South America. Mountain Lions hunt people in North America. Ect. Ect. Ect.omega 616 said:
We are, without a doubt, animals. Highly advanced animals, but animals none the less. The only way I could fathom us rising above that title is when we shed our biological selves and are no longer dependent on the food chain for energy. In short, when we are trans-humans.
Apologies, i meant for neccessity. Ie. Us humans hunt for sport and sometimes food, but only if we feel like it.ClockworkUniverse said:
Why can't we coin a new a classification of being, human?Belaam said:
Is it such a radical idea to create a new class of being? Think of it like mass effect, star treck, star wars etc ... loads of different races from humans, asari, klingon etc but it's not like slugs, dogs, rancors are all sat in a council in there respective series.
There are races which have a higher level of intellect and separate themselves from animals. Get what I mean?
Why would we? It's not even a good vanity project as ultimately it revolves around denial more than anything else. You might as well be asking why we aren't descended from wolves rather than australopiths on the grounds that it's 'cooler to think that'[footnote]And yes, I actually have heard somebody use that exact line[/footnote].omega 616 said:
You also don't see children on the council. Would you also like to posit the same about how they separate themselves from children and thus hold no relation to them?
Anyone answering no to this question is just trying to feel special and set themselves apart from the few things that crawl in the mud. Humans don't crawl in mud, just as most other animals don't either. The differences we make up to separate ourselves from animals is no different than saying a dog isn't a bird.
Except, well, it's not. Animals as a generalization, just instinct based, they eat when they are hungry, mate when it's the season, sometimes play and sleep when they are tired.Asita said:
Humans work, we make choices based off more than just instinct (shall I go on holiday, what car shall I buy, where do I want to live etc).
In mass effect the Asari had a conflict with the geth, an animal wouldn't be interested in either side of the argument, it can't rationalize, weigh things up etc, it can only fulfill needs ... that is what I think puts at least some separation between a human and animal.
You don't see children on the councils 'cos they aren't mature enough, they can't see the big picture or anything that would be of any value ... while the adults talked about government policy, the children would want a ball pool in the staff room. A dog can learn tricks but it's doesn't understand why, it's just knows "if I do this I might get a treat and/or my human will be pleased" a child can understand why, "don't touch that or you'll get hurt".
There is a difference between a baby and a dog ... no matter what people who love dogs a little too much might say.
Yes, humans are animals. It is the biological classification that accurately describes our mode of existence. Our ability to think doesn't make us not animals. The only thing I can think of that would allow humankind to exist apart from animals would be if we ever do the 'upload our consciousness to a computer' thing. Until then, humans are creatures of meat, blood, and bone, and so are animals.
First of all I feel obliged to point out that all those traits you just described for animals equally apply to humans. And while I could go into various traits we've observed in various species (such as grief, altruism, tool usage and the like), I really think the root issue is that you're insisting on seeing a classification of 'animal' as a pejorative. It's not. No more so than being classified as chordates or multi-cellular life. These are all things that we fit the criteria for and thus we are. We are also hominids, great apes, primates, mammals, eukaryotes and one of the many species of which life on this planet is comprised. We fit the definition of each and every one of these and to say so is neither cynicism nor self-loathing. It's not meant to make a value statement on human life, nor is it meant to diminish human accomplishment, nor forgive human fault. We're eukaryotes, we're heterotrophic, we lack rigid cell walls, we lack chlorophyll in our cells, and we're capable of spontaneous movement. Anything that possesses these traits is by definition an animal. That's how categorization works. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't cease to fit these criteria because we're particularly clever, and suggesting that we change the definition just to disassociate ourselves with 'lesser' creatures is simple arrogance insisting on treating a categorization system as a vanity project.omega 616 said:
And you're saying that that same logic doesn't apply to animals' exclusion from these councils, are you?
Well, why not...
Humans are gods.
Olympians, to be specific. They are the custodians of their world, capricious, wrathful, merciful, loving, hateful, violent, destructive, constructive, philanthropic, petty, vile, beautiful and masters of all they survey. Their power and potential is limitless.
I do wish that some would treat their family and neighbours with more kindness and understanding, but I would say that they are slowly getting better at that sort of thing all the time.
Humans are gods.
Olympians, to be specific. They are the custodians of their world, capricious, wrathful, merciful, loving, hateful, violent, destructive, constructive, philanthropic, petty, vile, beautiful and masters of all they survey. Their power and potential is limitless.
I do wish that some would treat their family and neighbours with more kindness and understanding, but I would say that they are slowly getting better at that sort of thing all the time.
As everyone has pointed out, humans are animals. It's not really debatable.
As for whether humans are in some way fundamentally different to the other animals, which I guess is the real question, I don't think so. Humans are a unique species, certainly, but the same could be said of literally every other species out there that ever has or will be. We're not really "better" than other species in any fundamental way either. To assume that no other animal out there is capable of complex thought "beyond" instincts is ridiculous to me, and provably wrong. Humans haven't even made that much of a difference to the planet yet, at least not compared to some types of organism (cyanobacteria for example, which poisoned the atmosphere and killed basically everything, and caused one of the most severe and longest ice ages ever).
The only thing that really makes humans special is probably our relatively advanced technology, and only time will tell if that works out for us or not in the long run.
As for whether humans are in some way fundamentally different to the other animals, which I guess is the real question, I don't think so. Humans are a unique species, certainly, but the same could be said of literally every other species out there that ever has or will be. We're not really "better" than other species in any fundamental way either. To assume that no other animal out there is capable of complex thought "beyond" instincts is ridiculous to me, and provably wrong. Humans haven't even made that much of a difference to the planet yet, at least not compared to some types of organism (cyanobacteria for example, which poisoned the atmosphere and killed basically everything, and caused one of the most severe and longest ice ages ever).
The only thing that really makes humans special is probably our relatively advanced technology, and only time will tell if that works out for us or not in the long run.