Are humans, animals?

[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.

 

[hermes]

To quote Shakespeare: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?"

So, yes. We are animals. We may want to reason our way out of it as much as we want, but while we need to eat food, drink water, have sex to procreate and sleep to rest, we are, biologically, very similar to any other animal under the sun.

 

[TomWiley]

We have removed ourselves from the food chain and we can, and have, killed off other species.

So what you're saying is that we're bad animals?

By no measure is any of that things we can be proud of.

 

[mistahzig1]

We are still biologically urged to copulate, to climb any social hierarchies, etc. etc.


The only thing we've achieved through time is to become more complex animals

 

[Ieyke]

Yes. Humans are animals.
There's nothing to debate here.

 

[Altorin]

Yes, I'm not sure how this is even a question.
If you are asking if we are different from all the other animal, yes we are. No other animals has achieved what humans have (That we know of).
Suggesting that we are not animals shows a lack of understanding of basic biology. Such a notion is likely the result of thinking of animals as "those things that don't think good"; it's extremely naïve.

To have humans not be included as animals would require one of two things.
1) Humans evolve to become a form of plant life. I don't know how this would even come about, but it would make us not animals.
2) Humans evolve to become a completely different form of life we have never seen before. For example, if we become completely incorporeal, then we could consider ourselves separate from animals.

even those, as long as we're still biological creatures, we'd be animals.

Basically, you can't escape your taxa. If you're an animal, it means your ancestors, to a certain point before the introduction of multi-cellular life were animals, and all of your descendants, no matter their shape, function or species, will be animals.

if the human strain convergently evolved some form of photosynthesis and that proved successful enough that all future strains had that mutation, and we sort of regressed into plant-like creatures, we wouldn't be plants. we'd be animals with plant-like features. our classifications of what constitutes an animal will change before the idea that our ancestors (to a point) and all of our descendants are anything but animals does.

That was a pretty wordy way of saying, we'll always be animals, until such a time that human beings in the biological sense are dead and "human" becomes another word for the series of robots that we build and install our consciousness into.

That's pretty much the only point when we stop being animals. As long as our descendants are shooting gametes at eachother in order to reproduce, there's no getting off the animal train. We're on it until animal is just a word being echo'd through space on the ancient radio signals of a dead species on a non-existant planet.

 

[Callate]

If we're separate from animals (and certainly, that's more of a philosophical distinction than one of biology or taxonomy), I would identify the distinction mostly in our ability to deny biological impulses- to choose not to eat, to drink, to become intoxicated, to mate. To see the probable long-term results of our actions and plan, to band together with those not directly part of our family or tribal group to achieve common goals. To view even our actions that are the result of more primal drives later with detachment and consider whether we should continue to permit those drives to define our actions; if not, to seek help, to make peace, to remove ourselves from bad situations despite their providing short-term gratification.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Why can't we coin a new a classification of being, human?

We have, that's our genus (or species if you mean "modern humans").

That's not really what you're asking though. So the question is: at which ancestor exactly does the creature stop being an animal? The ability to create technology (which is what all the things that you think separate us from animals stem from) may well be a feature to define a new clade, however there's really no denying that we still possess all the traits which define an animal.

 

[Drizzitdude]

A smart animal is still just an animal. So I say yeah.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

An animal with a highly evolved brain is still an animal, so yeah, we are animals.

 

[Roxor]

An animal is a multicellular eukaryote which consumes other living things for nutrition.

By that definition, humans are indeed animals.

 

[Olas]

Technically we are, in the scientific sense.

In the figurative sense... well that is a complex question who's answer probably differs from person to person. Though being labeled an "animal" in the figurative sense usually requires a high degree of barbarism.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Yes, we're animals. We're similar to animals in structure and behaviour and what not (not behaviour as in going to work/showering, behaviour as in scratching ourselves, breathing and breaking down food with acid). We're just uniquely resourceful animals that have managed to eliminate most of the problems animals have and dominate all other animals. Although it really doesn't matter.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Until we figure out how to convert ourselves into pure cybernetic form, yes.

 

[Winthrop]

snip

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).

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.

Perhaps "beast" is a better term for what you mean. The definitions you give don't fit the vast majority of animals without complex nervous system. Like a sea sponge doesn't really fit that definition either as they do not feel hungry, do not sleep, do not feel tired, and do not play.

There IS a scientific definition of the term animal. We fit the conditions, therefore we are animals. As another poster has said, because we are animals and we do those things, animals can do those things. Having more things won't make us not animals. We need to LOSE certain features. Biologically, anatomically, and scientifically, we are animals. There is not a scientific definition of beasts (to my knowledge) so that is debatable. I would say we are still fairly bestial, but that is something up for debate. I think because we are still mostly looking after basic animal needs ("I need this job to put food on the table" "Man, I want to have sex with that girl" etc) Perhaps edit the OP to say beast instead of animal to avoid any science arguments?