Are humans, animals?

[Vivi22]

We have removed ourselves from the food chain, since we have weapons we can fuck up anything that looks at us funny. It's actually really easy for us to just genocide every species. (of course in a one on one fight, loads of things would fuck us up!)

We haven't removed ourselves from the food chain. We've made it to the top of it. But our avoiding being eaten depends on us generally living in large groups and building structures to keep us safe. Wander off into a jungle filled with Panthers by yourself and things will still eat you if the opportunity arises. And that we've become the most effective species at killing things doesn't make us not be animals, it just makes us the most successful mammals to ever live.

We don't really hunt, we can but it's more for sport than need to survive.

We adapted newer, more efficient, and safer methods of gathering food. That doesn't mean we're not animals. If other animals had the physical and mental capacity to figure this stuff out they'd do the same. Maybe some already do and I'm just not aware of them.

We have extended our lives far beyond what I think we were meant to. If a wild animal lost a leg, it's dead but humans can have prosthetic. Serious diseases can be managed etc.

The average age of humans has increased, but not the maximum potential age. The reason we live longer is because we've gotten better at dealing with things that will kill us. Since all species generally try and avoid or deal with things that can kill them in some way or another, we're not unique in this regard.

We have claimed just about every piece of land worth a fuck and live on it.

All species will move into any space that they are able to adapt to and thrive, or at the very least survive, in. Again, us being more successful than any other species may make us unique, but it doesn't mean we aren't animals. We expanded as much as we did because that's what animals do to ensure their survival.

We have all kinds of crazy tech that we just take for granted.

Lot's of animals use tools. We just got better at it than any of the rest of them because our ability to think, adapt, and craft better tools is pretty much the only major advantage we had going for us.

Edit: I should add, if you think we are still animals, what would make us not animals?

Nothing would. We'll always be animals. We're just animals that have adapted to our environments in a much different way than most.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Yes. Bipedal, omnivorous, diurnal land mammals with impressive cognitive abilities and pretty alright long-term stamina for running, all things considered, to be precise.
I do not find this to be a problem.

 

[VanTesla]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

That's a lot of snips!

You're thinking about it in purely biology terms, "think outside the box" ... I wish I knew a better word or phrase for it but instead of "we share dna/we fit in this box" mentality, what about making a new box and put a new sticker on it?

Maybe it will only happen when we meet aliens 'cos at the moment we would be the ones that fit into that box.

I would say if an alien race ever graced us first, then we will be labeled as the monkey esc things we are and just slightly above the rest of the inhabiting species on earth. None of that would matter though for if said alien race where to contact us first it would likely be for resources or to prevent our own stupid destruction in some manner be it put us in a zoo or just wipe us out so we stop being an annoyance to the rest of the species. Of course that is assuming the Aliens are possibly similar to how we act towards new foriegn things and or see something we want or is a threat.

 

[books of war 13]

I'd still say we're really animals we still burn dead plant and animal material to survive on for one thing, what were our ancestors 10,000 years ago doing? Burning dead plant and animal material to survive. The only thing that we have progressed in is a properly is in a cultural sense (and to be honest that is just us deciding not to practice cannibalism anymore).

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'd agree that self-awareness and general sapience are both wonderful things, Omega, but they're not the exclusive province of humans. Some chimps develop self-awareness, and we already know dolphins show signs of it as well. You're looking for some sort of fine and extremely limited dividing line between us and the rest of the animal kingdom - but the fact is that there's no easy divider between us and the rest of Animalia.

Consider our much-celebrated sapience, for instance. It's mostly an accident and a happy coincidence of our ability to just plain *survive*. We learned to stand up to start looking over tall grass and see predators incoming, and that, in turn, lessened pressure on the brainstem. The straighter we stood, the better we got at outrunning our natural predators, the more intelligent and resourceful we became.

Feel free to marvel at what we can accomplish, sure, but be aware that between a Glock, a stick-based propeller and a rock thrown by hand, there's not a lot of fundamental difference. In all three cases, you're throwing something forward in the hopes of hurting something or someone that might hurt you. There's also not a whole lot of differences between Lascaux's cave paintings and the latest crop of games. In both cases, you're looking at a medium where artists are trying to decipher the human condition by chronicling or interpreting it.

We're animals that managed to refine primal abilities and needs to precise and sometimes exquisite standards. That doesn't make me any less of an ape. No waxing on about our supposed inherent nobility could make me think otherwise - the "special snowflake" mentality we've cultivated since the beginnings of organized civilization is what's killing our forests, our lakes and our atmosphere. It's the reason why we can't bring ourselves to be pragmatic and ensure that our numbers don't grow to be unsustainable by our one and only home.

 

[Something Amyss]

You're thinking about it in purely biology terms, "think outside the box" ... I wish I knew a better word or phrase for it but instead of "we share dna/we fit in this box" mentality, what about making a new box and put a new sticker on it?

What purpose does this serve? Classifications have a purpose. Developing a new box for the purpose solely of distinguishing us seems inane.

Maybe it will only happen when we meet aliens 'cos at the moment we would be the ones that fit into that box.

why do you think intelligent life capable of making it to our planet would see us as anything other than the digital watch wearing hairless apes we are?

 

[Caiphus]

As much as it's difficult for the OP to admit, and as desperate as he is to appeal to our emotional side or our sense of arrogance, no, we are as animal as we were ten million years ago.

Our brains have developed tremendously, and we are as close to masters of our planet as one might get, but we are animals, and there is no real way you can seriously entertain any sort of logical argument that we are not. By biological definition we are animals. We are still territorial. We have adrenal glands that make us do stupid things when we are scared, angry or jealous. Even OP's dogged resistance to the idea that we are animals is more of an animal trait than he realises.

We are extremely smart animals, but we are still animals.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Humans only get called animals in the proverbial sense. Strictly speaking, we're advanced mammals, but the term 'animal' is reserved for something a bit more primal, namely ruled by instinct over intellect.

>.>

given how we've yet to outgrow our base need to fight, particularly over 'territory' (and for some truly stupid reasons no less) how we, as a species act less on intellect and more on impulse, were still more 'animalistic' then we want to think we are. Not in the literal sense, but we do still do a lot of things that are easily attributed to the fact we are animals at the core, just as we do things that have, as the OP said, have made us pretty much unstoppable to all but our selves or some one with more advanced tech.

so yes, we're still animals.

 

[SaetonChapelle]

My immediate reaction to my own question is "of course, fuck knuckle" but I can't decide when I think about it.

We have removed ourselves from the food chain, since we have weapons we can fuck up anything that looks at us funny. It's actually really easy for us to just genocide every species. (of course in a one on one fight, loads of things would fuck us up!)
We don't really hunt, we can but it's more for sport than need to survive.
We have extended our lives far beyond what I think we were meant to. If a wild animal lost a leg, it's dead but humans can have prosthetic. Serious diseases can be managed etc.
We have claimed just about every piece of land worth a fuck and live on it.
We have all kinds of crazy tech that we just take for granted.

On the other hand, we came from animals, we breathe, eat, mate etc.

Just kind of can't make up my mind on the issue and I thought it would be a nice topic to discuss, as I haven't seen it here before and I never want to tread on old ground.

Captcha: "I mustache you why" ... best, most sentient captcha ever!

Edit: I should add, if you think we are still animals, what would make us not animals?

Human beings are considered "animals". No matter how much we have evolved and how intelligent we may be, we still hold functions as animals, especially socially. We might have technological power, but that doesn't mean that without our man made tools we would be able to defeat predators easily.
A theory you might find interesting is the Social Rank Theory. Now, much of this theory is mostly how depression can be proven to be a good thing in the animal kingdom, but it reflects heavily on humans as well. Most of human behavior can be seen in animals. Just to speak briefly about the theory, it states that we as humans, and other animals, experience such feelings as depression or shame in order to protect ourselves from damage or danger, even death, from both predators and peers. If you feel fear or weak towards an individual, whether they be your enemy or the dominant member of your social group, and you yourself are in fact weaker and more prone to damage or shame within your social group, you are less likely to go up against this individual or situation. Such a scenario can be due to food, potential mates, or other resources. For humans, it can depend on if you're the more dominant one within your group, whether you get the girlfriend you've been wanting, whether you get that job or new car.
This is only one example, but human beings can still be seen as animals due to our reflecting traits and behaviors. Intelligence doesn't always mean superiority, and being an "animal" isn't necessarily an insult.

 

[SinisterGehe]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

That's a lot of snips!

You're thinking about it in purely biology terms, "think outside the box" ... I wish I knew a better word or phrase for it but instead of "we share dna/we fit in this box" mentality, what about making a new box and put a new sticker on it?

Maybe it will only happen when we meet aliens 'cos at the moment we would be the ones that fit into that box.

Well issues is that in science there must be a point of reference. In philosophy language and culture must have meta-idea that the language references so the word would have meaning.

We do not have anything else to compare ourselves. We could use something mythical or supernatural, like gods or other kinds of superbeings that human culture has farmed up in whole pantheons over it's existence. But their meta is that of "They are more than we are and we are less".

We can't think outside the box because if we would, there would be no box - we would be lost.
Some philosopher might think this as an opportunity to ascend the current metaphysical realm, that our human culture exists in at the moment. But because our language skills are too primitive to handle such ideas, we can't even think of concepts this huge with the references we have at the moment, there is no word in human language that would be complex and grand enough to hold such concept that we would need for this task.
Until humans can communicate in plane of pure thoughts and ideas - something like telepathy - where we could transfer a whole idea construction without having to break it down to bits to the level of language.

But yes: We would need to meet another race humanoid like beings in order to have something to have to base our new definition on. Another way would be able to establish a sustainable colonies to another planetary bodies and let time take it's course and we could define ourselves as "Earthlings" or whatever word we come up for it then.

 

[waj9876]

On one hand, we're animals. Advanced animals, yes, but still animals. Despite our ability to use an advanced form of mind, and allow logic to rule over emotion...we don't. At all. Everything is based off of emotion and instinct.

On the other hand, we're just completely fucking amazing animals. The highest form of intelligence in the galaxy, as far as we can tell anyway. We turned from shitty little hunter-gatherers into the apex-predator of our world. We have nothing above us on the food-chain. We can eat sharks, even though we aren't that great at swimming. We can eat many, many kinds of plants and animals, which means we will always have a food source to fall back on should something happen to one of our "main" diets.

And we're developing amazing technology at an astounding rate even today. Every time someone goes "Nope, we're done. Best technology physically possible." scientists punch those people in the dick and then write equations on their balls.

So yes, we're animals. But we're the best animals around. (Again, as far as we know anyway.)

 

[Denamic]

Yes. Bipedal, omnivorous, diurnal land mammals with impressive cognitive abilities and pretty alright long-term stamina for running, all things considered, to be precise.
I do not find this to be a problem.

Pretty alright stamina? Try the best on the planet. A human in peak condition can literally run for days. ANY other mammal that tries that would die, also literally.

 

[kalakashi]

You can call it arrogance all you like, you can even use all kinds of long words all you like. To me it's not arrogance, it's just an objective view point, I wouldn't say any animal is less than a human ... a human is just on a different level.

I am saying humans have some significant advantages over animals ... You say something like "an ape uses a stick to get ants, see they use tools" ... we make huge, metal tubes that fly! We can launch into space or delve the depths, sure a monkey could put a bucket on it's head and walk along the bottom of a pond but it's not even close to a submarine!

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.

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).

I think if you spent more time looking into it, you would find less and less differences between humans and all the other animals. Off the top of my head, I can think of an experiment in which a chimp could press a button to receive a treat, but this would also give a small electric shock to a chimp in the adjacent cell. As soon as the connection was realised, the chimp stopped pressing the button. There's empathy, quite an advanced emotion.
Another more famous test, in which a crow attempts to drink water from a cup, but the cup is too tall, and the crow cannot reach the water. After a very short amount of time and a few different methods of attempt, the crow find some stones and uses them to displace the water, bringing it to a reachable height. Pretty ingenious, and not just for a crow.

On the point about human inventions versus the tools of other animals, check this link out, it's Neil De Grasse Tyson (everyone's favourite astrophysicist) talking about extraterrestrial intelligence, but it raises some very good points about intelligence in general that you might not have thought of (I certainly hadn't).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeJoVeKSsyA


In another of your posts you mention creating a new box and putting a new label on it, something along the lines of "self-aware being of advanced intelligence", and while this does actually sound like a good idea, and probably something that would need to be done in the event of the founding of an intergalactic civilization, I don't think anyone on earth could currently give a definitive difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. It is a collection of little differences that makes us so much "better" (and I think better is a good word for it =P) rather than any distinguishing feature.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Animal is just a taxonomic classification, ie, 'of kingdom Animalia'.

So yes, we're definitely animals. Not only that, things never stop being a part of their ancestral categories. A snake is still a tetrapod despite not actually having legs any more. So we will never cease to be animals.

Consider this:

If a fungus were to somehow evolve to the point where we'd consider it sentient, would it stop being a fungus? Presumably no. So why would an animal that evolves to be sentient stop being an animal?
You can replace 'sentient' with whatever qualifier you like. It still holds true.

 

[suntt123]

We have removed ourselves from the food chain

No we haven't. We're at the top. There's a difference. We still eat plants and animals. Our corpses feed other plants and animals as well. And occasionally, someone gets mauled by a tiger or something.

We don't really hunt.

And now we're all fat. HOORAY! In all seriousness, not every animal hunts. Certain ants can actually farm fungi, for example.

We have extended our lives far beyond what I think we were meant to.

A"Meant to"?
We live as long as we can until something/someone kills us or part(s) of our bodies fail. It usually falls into a certain number of years, but that can vary depending on individual circumstances. How long are we "meant to" live? Cuz I didn't get the memo!!

B"Extended our lives"?
What's so special about that? There are animal species who can regenerate limbs, Sharks are completely immune to diseases (as if they weren't awesome enough), some jellyfish don't even die of old age, etc.

And even disregarding that, how does this make us not animals?? The desperate, almost frantic, pursuit of not being dead is probably the most basic animal instinct there is. Sure we do it a lot fancier than other animals but that's hardly a reason.

We have claimed just about every piece of land worth a fuck and live on it.

Territoriality? Or are you referring to how far spread we are? Because there are ants everywhere as well.

We have all kinds of crazy tech that we just take for granted.

Tools are not unique to humans. Tool making is just modifying the world/objects around us to make everyday actions easier. Technology is just really (REALLY) advanced, (sometimes VERY) complicated tools.

I think you're reading too much into our advancements, but it's possible I'm just extremely bitter, cynical, and all those other awful things. I don't think we're as great as we would like to believe. Yeah, we're all advanced and whatever, but that just means that we have now come up with methods to murder/screw each other (as well as everything else) over without the at least somewhat justifiable excuse of "because we had to to survive." In that sense, who are the real "animals"? Not that I'm complaining; I'd rather have this than not.

Whatever, when you get down to it we are the Sapien species of the Homo genus. Primate, Mammalians, etc. Advanced, yet still very much animals in every way and no matter how much we advance or evolve (hyper advanced) animals are ALL we will EVER be and nothing will change that (short of becoming robots). What would it take for us to not be considered animals? If we were plants or fungi... Or robots... But it's respectively too late, too late and too early for that now, isn't it? Being an animal is a purely biological thing. No amount of self awareness or thinking prowess will ever change that.

And if for whatever reason you still want to arbitrarily differentiate us from our more feral brethren-
Let's say we are Human Beings.
That is- Beings who can exhibit humanity (for better or worse, I suppose).

 

[Tsun Tzu]

We're animals regardless of whether or not we "believe" we are...and, honestly, there's no real shame in the term. It's just descriptive.

And, no, I don't think that there is a way for us to no longer be defined as such. Unless, of course, we find some way to completely remove ourselves/consciousness' from our physical bodies.

Even then, we'd have trace elements belonging to our base animalistic nature, but it'd become a much more murkier issue.

 

[Someone Depressing]

We're an advanced species.

Dolphins are probably an advanced species, and we just don't know it.

And we're still animals.

We mate. We have genes. We nood to poop. If you land in one of those three catagories, or better yet, all of them, then you're probably alive, and thus, probably an animal.

 

[Johnny Impact]

We are obviously neither plant nor mineral, nor protist or any of the weird half-kingdoms naturalists fling around to try and classify the absurd proliferation of life.

Of course we are animals. We are made of meat, driven by instincts, chained to the same growth-age-death cycle as ever (albeit somewhat extended with modern nutrition and medicine). Those are pretty much the only criteria for being animals.

Removing ourselves from the food chain and developing reason has no bearing on the question. Certainly the world has never seen anything like human industry and organization on the large scale. That doesn't matter. On the individual scale we're just ambulatory bags of pork.

 

[Raikas]

You're thinking about it in purely biology terms, "think outside the box" ... I wish I knew a better word or phrase for it but instead of "we share dna/we fit in this box" mentality, what about making a new box and put a new sticker on it?

Maybe it will only happen when we meet aliens 'cos at the moment we would be the ones that fit into that box.

Outside of biology when biology is what defines "animal" and thus makes us animals? That's a bit of a different question than the one presented in the OP.

That said, there have been arguments in philosophy and anthropology and linguistics that argued for some absolute line between humans and all other animals, but most of those lines have either been erased or have been forced to shift.

Psychology once argued that non-human animals have no sense of self, but then mirror-testing showed that many higher primates, sea mammals, and certain types of bird do understand the concept of "me", so that's out the window as a distinguishing feature.

Anthropology once argued that non-human animals don't manipulate their environment in creative ways, or that they don't use tools, but then the great ape studies of the 1960s and 70s happened, and that went out the window.

Some linguists still talk about the human-only status of language, but ongoing studies into communication capabilities of non-human primates, sea mammals and some birds seem to suggest that at the very least there's some proto-language potential in a number of other species.

 

[Childe]

I think we are animals due to our behavior not anything else. We have degraded towards animals constantly with sleeping with whomever we want whenever we want, fighting for power and wanted everyone else to obey us. Actually come to think of it we are worse then animals because for the most part animals have a solid hierarchy that works and they all work for the good of the group. We humans can't even do that. It's sad how far we have fallen.