Are humans, animals?

[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?

 

[demoman_chaos]

-snip-

We aren't plants. Though there is an argument for us being among the fungus category, there really is only one place for us. We are classified as great apes. Just because we have all sorts of tools at our disposal does not change what we are. To think we are something more is just plain arrogant.

 

[blazearmoru]

snip

Yeah, big fucking deal ... a monkey doing high level calculus, except this isn't futurama and Guenter had hair.

Thanks for adding nothing to the discussion.

You asked a ridiculously open ended question, I gave you a ridiculously open ended answer.

Of course humans are animals, and it implies a certain level of arrogance on our part to suggest we're not.

It's 2014 and we still kill people over skin colour, sexuality, and religion. Humans are still very much jumpy, panicky, stupid animals.

10/10 answer

Also, what does snip mean?

 

[Dragonpit]

snip

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.

It's not like I am a king saying the peasants are less or a KKK member saying people with different skin are lesser. 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!

You know when something is out of reach but you reach for it and your finger tips are nudging it? I feel like your doing that with my point. If you sat down Noah style with each animal and asked it what it thought we should do with the planet, how can all the other animals help them ... you'd have a fucking massacre, the carnivores and omnivores would be eating the herbivores etc.

Sure, if you got everyone in a room and asked what we could do to improve the world it would be an endless argument but nobody would be eating anybody, might get the odd cannibal actually.

Okay, yeah, this has gone on long enough.

It sounds to me like you don't question the fact that we're animals, but rather are looking to STOP being an animal. If that's the case, I have an unfortunate truth for you: it's not going to happen.

Yes, we have a few unique talents of our own that has resulted in a number of advantages, including the ability to defend ourselves against things that would normally result in our slaughter. But when you get right down to it, these are just cheap tricks on our part; they don't guarantee survival. In fact, we've also managed to turn these same advantages against ourselves.

What makes us animals is simple: we are, for better or for worse, connected to nature like every other living thing. It's as simple as that. You could bury yourself as far underground as you would like, you could put yourself as far up into the sky as you would like (even into space if it suits you), but so long as you breathe air, you are still very much connected to nature, and are thus still very much an animal. (I'm sorry if I sound condescending; I'm trying to be as polite as possible, given the circumstances.)

Changing our classification in the world won't change this; it certainly won't change us. The only ways I could think to do that would be able to somehow exist as a soul or spiritual entity, or to somehow put yourself into a robotic body, but none of that is really feasible, and if it were, it may still not change anything. At the end of the day we are still what we are. Who we are. I don't really understand why you would feel the need to do far more to separate ourselves for the rest of the world like this, but to be perfectly honest, this doesn't really sound like a healthy choice.

 

[Jadak]

Also, what does snip mean?

It means they quoted a bunch of text, wanted to show the fact that they were quoting something, but didn't actually want to show all that text, so the text is 'snipped' from the post.

 

[Mooboo Magoo]

"Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa."

By definition we are animals as we are classified as being part of the Animalia kingdom.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Of course we're animals, unless you think we're vegetables or minerals. We just happen to have traded off certain things for heightened intelligence, tool-using/making and cooperation (despite people sometimes whining about how we're a virus on planet earth and rubbish like that). Maybe if we create true artificial intelligence, we'll be able to create non-animal, non-human "descendants", legacy "lifeforms" like the machines that ran the matrix in "The Matrix" movie. But even if you can somehow digitally copy the structure of your brain into "cyberspace" in the distant future, that's just a copy.

Here's a picture to remind you of where you came from, even if you're sitting in a fancy restaurant amused by the differences between you and other animals: http://www.ucsd.tv/evolutionmatters/lesson2/images/embryo4.gif

If you need something a little more graphic to drive the point home, do a google image search for "Human congenital abnormalities".