I have to agree with the person who said 'pants' earlier. Other animals have demonstrated qualities we've claimed make us humans unique, but when was the last time you saw a chimpanzee wearing pants? Or a dolphin?
What do you think separates humans from other animals?
- Thread starter CulixCupric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Humans are animals. Any separation between us and non-human animals ought to be founded on old traditional or religious thinking rather than any scientific reasoning.
I keep seeing people writing that humans, in difference to animals, relies on reasoning rather than instincts, but that's not at all in line what modern ethology and anthropology will tell us. Humans relies on instincts just as much, in some cases to a greater extent, than animals. Elephants, for example, are less dependent on primal neurological impulses when it comes to basic, everyday decisions than most human beings seems to be.
I also see people claiming that humans in difference to animals have "souls", but I don't even see any point in trying to counter-argument such bs.
As to intelligence, well many monkeys and apes shows signs of intelligence that are pratically human, and modern research in the area of ethology and animal intelligence constantly challenges old perceptions. I think the difference between a human, and a highly intelligent non-human animals such as a pig, a dolphin or a gorilla, is considerably smaller than most humans like to think.
I keep seeing people writing that humans, in difference to animals, relies on reasoning rather than instincts, but that's not at all in line what modern ethology and anthropology will tell us. Humans relies on instincts just as much, in some cases to a greater extent, than animals. Elephants, for example, are less dependent on primal neurological impulses when it comes to basic, everyday decisions than most human beings seems to be.
I also see people claiming that humans in difference to animals have "souls", but I don't even see any point in trying to counter-argument such bs.
As to intelligence, well many monkeys and apes shows signs of intelligence that are pratically human, and modern research in the area of ethology and animal intelligence constantly challenges old perceptions. I think the difference between a human, and a highly intelligent non-human animals such as a pig, a dolphin or a gorilla, is considerably smaller than most humans like to think.
We're humans, they're not. Otherwise, we're ALL animals.
You can say whatever you want, but we are.
I just don't like acting like humans are somehow above being genetically related to other species.
Sure, we do things that other animals can't or won't do; but we still came from the same place as everything else.
You can say whatever you want, but we are.
I just don't like acting like humans are somehow above being genetically related to other species.
Sure, we do things that other animals can't or won't do; but we still came from the same place as everything else.
Creativity and imagination.CulixCupric said:
We do not "accept." We do not "adapt." Animals accept and adapt to the world around them as it is. For better or worse, we see potential -- that's the "imagination" -- and we feel a need to design ways of making that happen -- that's the "creativity."
Other animals have an inkling of this, like monkeys and crows using basic tools. But nowhere near what we have as a species.
hmm, maybe the self-consciousness, the ability to wonder, proven by the fact that we alone can grow and develop as species (apart from biological developments of course)
How do you know what other animals are or are not capable of? Have they ever had the chance? No. Humans are too busy caging, performing experiments, or wiping out their numbers because humans have it in their heads theyre better than any other animal on the planet. We've taken up so much room, what chances do land/air dwelling animals have of evolving to the point we have? They dont. The second humans sense a threat they wipe it out, or have you not noticed the mass destruction we cause?TestECull said:
Sure, animals trash their environment. But its nothing that isnt fixed in a small time period and balanced out by nature. Humans cause problems that will take anything from hundreds to millions of years to finally balance out. I.E. dumping waste into lakes, spilling hundreds of tons of crude oil into the ocean, destroying thousands of acres of rainforest, and even dumping radioactive material into the ground.
Let me ask you. What other animal has done those? Go on. Im waiting. Tell ya what, I'll widen the criteria to anything that isn't human. Find me another species that is capable of dumping radioactive waste into the ground.
Cant do it? Thought so.
Humans are the only species creative enough to fuck up the natural environment on a global scale. When an animal looks up into the night sky and the most it thinks is "Ooh, dark...don't see any predators...I'm horny, where's something to hump?" is probably because theyve been drinking from contaminated waters and living in hazardous areas and will no longer have the chance to reach higher thought.
Youre naive as to think humans' "creativity" is really that special to be impressed by and focus only on parts of the whole picture. Dinosaurs got to reign on earth for millions of years, I dont see humans coming anything close to that due to the fact we will most likely nuke each other to extinction. Self-extermination, the epitome of human creativity.
Language. Language, and the ability to express abstract thought and possibilities (the "if" statement) with it. That particular property of our language makes it different from the way other animals communicate. Other animals do not have a way of expressing "if" statements (as in "this will happen IF this happens, and this other thing will happen IF this doesn't happen").
And by language I mean starting from the most primitive forms of human language, as in cave paintings maybe. Cave paintings, like the ones showing a hunting scene, are believed to be not the depiction of something that happened, but an artist's depiction of what could or would happen later. That's the "if" statement right there in graphic form. From there to iPod applications, is just a matter of aggregating sophistication and refining technology.
And by language I mean starting from the most primitive forms of human language, as in cave paintings maybe. Cave paintings, like the ones showing a hunting scene, are believed to be not the depiction of something that happened, but an artist's depiction of what could or would happen later. That's the "if" statement right there in graphic form. From there to iPod applications, is just a matter of aggregating sophistication and refining technology.
I was going to say the internet but lol catz own about 1/3 of the internet that isn't pr0nz.
Joke answer aside, I went to college for anthropology which is the study of man so I've thought about this for a number of years.
Honestly, I'd say domestication of wild plants and animals.
Also, I'd say that we passed a point where we cannot survive without tool use. Even animals that use tools can get by without tool use. It's a hard point to argue but I'm sure someone will argue it.
I've spent a few summers on archaeological digs and had the workers show me how to survive in the jungle and for humans it would be nearly impossible without at least a few tools. Because we evolved from jungles with a lot of fruit (vitamin C), we cannot survive without it.
We sweat a lot to regulate heat so we are very dependent on fresh water.
We are omnivores but it'd be nearly impossible for us to take down live prey. We'd basically have to become scavengers like you see humans doing in post-apocalyptic media.
Our fingernails and toenails grow at a rampant rate so we would need to use rocks to grind them down which is once again, tool use. You can bite off your fingernails but you'd at least need someone else to bite off your toenails if you could possibly get by without tool use.
Our range would be very, very small if we could somehow get by without tools.
Joke answer aside, I went to college for anthropology which is the study of man so I've thought about this for a number of years.
Honestly, I'd say domestication of wild plants and animals.
Also, I'd say that we passed a point where we cannot survive without tool use. Even animals that use tools can get by without tool use. It's a hard point to argue but I'm sure someone will argue it.
I've spent a few summers on archaeological digs and had the workers show me how to survive in the jungle and for humans it would be nearly impossible without at least a few tools. Because we evolved from jungles with a lot of fruit (vitamin C), we cannot survive without it.
We sweat a lot to regulate heat so we are very dependent on fresh water.
We are omnivores but it'd be nearly impossible for us to take down live prey. We'd basically have to become scavengers like you see humans doing in post-apocalyptic media.
Our fingernails and toenails grow at a rampant rate so we would need to use rocks to grind them down which is once again, tool use. You can bite off your fingernails but you'd at least need someone else to bite off your toenails if you could possibly get by without tool use.
Our range would be very, very small if we could somehow get by without tools.
sorry but this sounds kind of silly:Ravenbom said:
1: if we need vitamin c to survive then you should probably try it in a forest with fruit
2:what animal doesn't need fresh water to survive?
3:we build tools because they increase our chances of survival you can build a bow or even build a trap to catch food.
I don't really get what your trying to say so sorry if this offends you
Ah, but you said so yourself. We "haven't given them the chance". For all we know they could be doing the very same thing when they're at our level of intelligence. So chill the fuck out. Besides, the OP was asking what seperates us from animals AT THIS MOMENT. Because we've evolved from a common ancestor, of course there's the possibility for other animals to gain a higher intelligence.Wushu Panda said:
In a few hundred thousand years or so. You know, whenver evolution gets around to it.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth because they're large as fuck and they had teeth. They settled into a natural cycle that persisted, and was only ended because of a worldwide iceage that they could not prepare for.
humans thus far do not have a natural cycle. Whether we rule for a hundred more years or a million, that's all dependent on how effective we are in working out our problems. Dinosaurs didn't really have problems aside from not being eaten by other dinosaurs.
Human creativity IS special. It's just that it's also a lot more complex. With complexity comes problems. Just because it may be short lived doesn't mean it's any less significant.
Oh, and about us prevent other animals from reaching a higher plane of thought? Give us enough time. We might just help those animals get there, in the end.
Five pages and not a single correct answer...
The ability to use the search bar.
But seriously though, the fact that we can't produce offspring(capable of breeding) with them. That's what separates animals from each other, assuming "humans" stands for the species. That is the correct answer.
Of course, "what do you think" justifies you all flinging your opinions and arbitrary definitions around, but here's some things that might make you consider that these scientist folks might have the this definition thing pegged down pretty well:
Babies are humans, right? Well the really young ones aren't sapient, creative, smarter than a dog or what have you.
And humans really don't have anything that animals wouldn't either in a more primitive form.
Ants also build roads and shape their environment to suit their needs. Too lazy to find video.
That should cover most of posts in this thread.
[sub]Next time I can just copy-paste this.[/sub]
The ability to use the search bar.
But seriously though, the fact that we can't produce offspring(capable of breeding) with them. That's what separates animals from each other, assuming "humans" stands for the species. That is the correct answer.
Of course, "what do you think" justifies you all flinging your opinions and arbitrary definitions around, but here's some things that might make you consider that these scientist folks might have the this definition thing pegged down pretty well:
Babies are humans, right? Well the really young ones aren't sapient, creative, smarter than a dog or what have you.
And humans really don't have anything that animals wouldn't either in a more primitive form.
That ape is just being a better human being then some people.
;D
Ants also build roads and shape their environment to suit their needs. Too lazy to find video.
That should cover most of posts in this thread.
[sub]Next time I can just copy-paste this.[/sub]
The only thing is a single thought, that we do not need to follow natural cycles that other animals follow. This single thought led to the mentality: Why change to adapt to nature, when we can change nature to adapt to us. This one line of thought is the only thing that has kept us separate from animals, and led to everything we have done in society since.
However; The complex nature of thought is not the only link in life so don't feel smug, when measuring life a bug is just as valuable as a human.
PS: Keep a eye on some plants, particularly the fungi, as they have shown inklings of the same mentality.
However; The complex nature of thought is not the only link in life so don't feel smug, when measuring life a bug is just as valuable as a human.
PS: Keep a eye on some plants, particularly the fungi, as they have shown inklings of the same mentality.