Are humans, animals?

[kurokotetsu]

Yes. None of your points mean that we are not animals. Animasl may use tools. ANimals are adaptable. ANimals can live beyond expdectaions (doemstic animals do). Not all carnivores hunt. We are part of the food chain (terciary consumers, as we have no natural predators and predate on almost everything). Why would any pf these cahracteristics make us not animals?

snip

I wish you'd have words with the rest of these guys, to quote David Haye "it's as one sided as a gang rape".

I agree, which seems odd 'cos I just said we are animals but I think humans are a much higher a form of them.

Hey, it's not my responsibility when other people willingly limit themselves. If they don't wanna see themselves any higher than the beast, then that gives me all the more room to shine.

Anyway, the animal term is reserved for that which remains lower in development. We humans made the word, wrote the dictionary in fact, to define the condition. Ultimately, that makes it our declaration to differ ourselves from what animals ARE. So, though we do have...

The dolphin pods who seem quite aware of themselves and their surroundings,
The wolf packs who organize, have certain social functions, and mourn their dead,
The cat which - let's face it - has us waiting on it hand-and-foot for a laugh,
The many numerous other tool-creating animals aho CAN (depending on who) communicate...

...we are the ones who create the machines, the cities, the philosophies, and so on. We stopped being animals once we decided to adapt the environment to suit our needs, not the other way around. There's just been far too much going around to be animal around here anymore.

All animals in one way or anotehr adapt ther enviroment and change their enviroment around them. Ants build ant colonies for example, which is an alteration of teh enviroment. The scale maybe differnet, but all animals do (even if is just becasue of their eating habits). ANd we still have to use heating and cooling in enviroments, we still are at mercy of floods and droughts and have to adapt to them.

Also we are not "more developed", as there is no more or less developement in evolution. There are just different branches. Even if our brain power is higher than most animals, other characteristecs (muscles, vision, senses, equilibrium, etc.) that are far less than our other animals. S no we are not higher.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zip Snip

Again, I'm not responsible for your views, BUT...you'll find it very hard to convince me of your side on the matter as I sit in like a skyscraper restaurant eating a lovely meal cooked to perfection whilst enjoying dinner-theater production of The Importance of Being Earnest. Still yet, you make this claim on a video game-related forum, whose main subject is beyond the comprehension of all animals. Entertainment media? You need an infinite amount of monkeys to make Shakespeare alone. Long way off.

 

[manic_depressive13]

If both an elephant and a sardine are animals, I don't see why a human wouldn't be. Unless you think a human is more different to an elephant than an elephant is to a sardine.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Strictly biologically speaking, yes, we are animals. But colloquially speaking, no, we are better than animals. It's why we care about creatures that don't care about us, and why we're appalled when someone acts on base instincts alone (which always leads to trouble).

Some choose to think that because we are still in the animal kingdom, we're no "better" than any other animal. That we aren't "special." I choose to think that the fact we can even discuss the issue already invalidates that argument.

 

[Fake James]

i think you are getting caught up in human exceptionalism, which is understandable, humans a great!

but animals a great at things too. a dog's sense of smell is much more advanced ('higher' if you will) than ours, similarly you could argue avian respiratory systems are also more advanced.

but being better, even significantly so, does not put you outside of a classification. dogs are animals even with their superior smell

and humans are animals, even with their superior intelligence.

the difference is not significant enough to warrant a different scientific classification.

 

[Fireaxe]

Humans are animals, intelligent and self aware, but still driven by the same desires as every other animal on this earth.

 

[Korolev]

Biologically we're in the Kingdom Animalia and thus, we are animals. Animals with very good brains and very good technology, but animals nonetheless. On a cellular level, we share many proteins and genes with many other animals as well - that's why we use mice in medical research, because a mouse cell has similar characteristics with a human cell. Biologically and scientifically, there is no debate whatsoever. We're animals.

But just because we're animals doesn't mean we're exactly the same as the other animals. Giraffes and Elephants are also animals but they're not really comparable. We're animals, but we're a special animal that can use complicated tools and complex language.

 

[Shinsei-J]

Humans are still animals no matter how logical and intelligent we think we are.
We hunger and we lust and that's all that's to it.
Also humans make good pet, I keep mine in the basement. (I taught it to eat from my palm)

 

[kurokotetsu]

Zip Snip

Again, I'm not responsible for your views, BUT...you'll find it very hard to convince me of your side on the matter as I sit in like a skyscraper restaurant eating a lovely meal cooked to perfection whilst enjoying dinner-theater production of The Importance of Being Earnest. Still yet, you make this claim on a video game-related forum, whose main subject is beyond the comprehension of all animals. Entertainment media? You need an infinite amount of monkeys to make Shakespeare alone. Long way off.

And there are other animlas that view the world in a way that is beyond our comprehension, like looking at other parts of the EM spectrum. And apes have been observed to be able to see TV and have comunication. Who is to say that they aren't incapable of understanding entretainment?

Also you don't seem to understand the theorme you quoted. First it ahsn't anything to do with this discussion. Second and infinite amount would not only make Shakespeare, they would make every single book that has ever existed ot will exist. And this dicussion too.

 

[Lord Garnaat]

Only in a biological sense. Human beings are flesh and blood: we have instincts, we require food, we reproduce, we live and die. In this sense, all animals are equal. But to quote a wonderful book, some animals are more equal than others. The difference between humanity and any other species is that we can be more than animals. We can unravel the universe, create things beyond the capabilities we were originally given, and discern right from wrong. We have souls, and feelings that are based on more than a simple reward-punishment system. It's what makes us superior, and it's reason why we're capable of even greater things.

 

[the_deku_nutt]

We're animals. The first thing we want to do is put food in our bellies. After that, we want a dry place to sleep and something with which to have sex. Then we poop. Everything else in between is just filler while we recharge.

 

[Raggedstar]

We're not completely removed from non-human life. We are animals in all sense of the word and are affected just like any other animal.

Any large predator can attack and eat us if given the desire and opportunity, and just because people have guns and transportation doesn't stop many people from getting killed by large snakes, crocodiles, sharks, big cats, bears, etc. People have been known to be killed by Polar Bears on the street in Churchill, Manitoba, and certain populations of tigers in India have no fear of humans and will kill them. Just because I don't need to worry about a wolf pouncing on me as I go to work here in my cozy suburb doesn't mean I'm above nature.

Also, let's not forget about the bacteria, viruses, plants, and fungi (while not animals, they're still part of life on Earth). They ALWAYS have ways of getting around all our knowledge and technology and stay one step ahead of us through various mutations. Mosquitoes have the highest death toll over all animals, as they're known to carry many times of diseases (such as malaria and West Nile Virus) and can spread at an alarming rate. One pandemic could wreck our shit.

Just highly specialized animals who make use of tools and learn to an astounding degree. That's all we are. Throughout history there were animals that took over because they had something that they could exploit above other species. We're just the only ones that had this level of intelligence and could rise over everyone else on that level and create settlements, sophisticated tools, agriculture, etc.

 

[Amir Kondori]

we're hugely successful as a species, but ultimately we're no more than a very unique and well adapted species of animals.

Well adapted is putting it mildly, we control other animals like no other that I know of ... we milk spiders, snakes and cows (plus other stuff, obviously), we ride horses, keep pets, selective breed, treat other animals like crops and we cull animals.

We have raised ourselves WAY above other animals, sure they have things on us (bats hearing, dogs senses etc) but I am not being ruled by anything other than another human.

Oh please, you speak as if the members of homo sapiens are different in base nature from our ancestors. We are not, and it will be a very long time, if ever, before we could consider ourselves significantly different in that respect.

Hypothetically, at what point do we say "we are different enough from our ancestors, that we are no longer animals"?

We haven't removed ourselves from the food chain.

What I meant is, nothing hunts us ... we might go on safari and be eaten but it's not like we always have to be on alert for anything, like a rabbit.

By definition humans are animals. I'm not sure what else to add really.

Ok, but do you think we could ever move past that?

There are many diseases that eat humans. You seem to be conflating our mastery and dominion over other forms of life on this planet with whether or not we are animals. We are animals. We are biological creatures that came to be on this planet the same way every other biological creature came to be. We have just happened to adapt complex brains capable of abstract thought and complicated language skills which allow us to pass on knowledge from generation to generation and region to region.
Those traits have made us more competitive than any other species out there, except perhaps for microorganisms. I think you are not asking the question you mean to be asking.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

I'm curious as to which of these would make us "not animals."

I mean, we're still part of the food chain. We're still fuel for creatures when we die.
Not all animals hunt.
Your opinion of what we were "meant" to live to doesn't hold any real insight into our nature.
Wild animals lose limbs and survive routinely. We have better choices for amputation and we have prosthetics, but these only enhance survival.
Cockroaches are also pretty ubiquitous.

I guess for the final point, at what point does tool using make us not animals?

 

[Amir Kondori]

Only in a biological sense. Human beings are flesh and blood: we have instincts, we require food, we reproduce, we live and die. In this sense, all animals are equal. But to quote a wonderful book, some animals are more equal than others. The difference between humanity and any other species is that we can be more than animals. We can unravel the universe, create things beyond the capabilities we were originally given, and discern right from wrong. We have souls, and feelings that are based on more than a simple reward-punishment system. It's what makes us superior, and it's reason why we're capable of even greater things.

Eh, right from wrong is not some intrinsic thing, it is cultural. Look at how ethics and values have changed throughout history and varies among cultures. We don't have souls, unless you are speaking poetically, and even then, no, we don't have souls. Being able to out compete other forms of life on this planet does not make us "superior" in any other way than being able to out compete other forms of life.

A whole lot of magical thinking going on in this post.

 

[Kyrinn]

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.

 

[Heronblade]

Oh please, you speak as if the members of homo sapiens are different in base nature from our ancestors. We are not, and it will be a very long time, if ever, before we could consider ourselves significantly different in that respect.

Hypothetically, at what point do we say "we are different enough from our ancestors, that we are no longer animals"?

Hypothetically speaking, discounting the possibility of changing ourselves so that we no longer physically fit under the classic definition (electronically uploaded intelligences for instance), we'd have to at minimum divorce ourselves as a whole from the usual instinctive behavior that drives us. We've warped our instincts in many cases away from their originally intended purpose, but we still dance to their tune in one way or another.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

SNIPDADERP

My immediate reaction to this topic is: "Why is there a comma between humans and animals?"

This sounds like a job for an ellipses...or is it!?

 

[sweetylnumb]

Of cource we are. House cats don't hunt or really participate in the food chain and they are still called animals. Domesticated animals. So yeah, i guess we domesticated ourselves.