Are humans any better than animals?

[pamchenko]

<< exaclty, humans are self-aware, and animals are not really...our thinking ability is much higher thatn other creatures >>


does this mean that skynet and the ensuing terminator armies are better?

this is actually a retarded question. there is nothing to be gained whatsoever from an answer. I have the vaguest idea what you are talking about when you say better...in what regard?
examples that it could go either way.
Are humans any better than animals at neffing? yes, your thread is a perfect example.
Are humans any better than animals at smelling items from a distance? yes and no depending on the animal.
Are humans any better than animals at transmitting their genetic information? probably not. most organisms have evolved their own appropriate mechanism for such a task or else they would have been extinct.

maybe you are an animal rights activist and feel bad about taking advantage of animals...in this regard, I guess humans are in control. We can manipulate their fates in labs/farms and stuff. but i dont think you meant this.




<< Who's to say that in a billion years, cats won't evolve into something comperable to our current state. Who's to say that we won't die out >>


this is highly unlikely. even more unlikely than the odds of you being able to tie your shoes without drooling.



<< Do animal's have souls or just humans? Personally I think that animals do have souls, but just aren't capable of properly expressing them. >>


oops, i guess you are a deep person.



<< Most of what humans do can be traced back to instincts and animalistic action. So, why do we always think that we are somehow greater? >>


though I'm not sure what you mean, I'm sure that I am clearly greater than you intellectually.

 

[8ball]

<< Geesh, morality does not need religion to exist >>


Morality exists because of religion.

 

[OS]

<< Morality exists because of religion. >>



An unprovable assertion.

 

[8ball]

<< An unprovable assertion >>


That may be true. In order to prove it, one would have to identify a time when there was no religion. If there was a time, it was too long ago.

 

[pamchenko]

if i have a christian dog, does that make it better than another animal?

 

[8ball]

<< if i have a christian dog >>


Being a &quot;Christian&quot; doesn't make one person better than another.

 

[Philosopher]

We are greater because we have a better system for procreation and are more likely to procreate outside of this world.

 

[Dexion]

Many people think that Human beings is superior because of thought. I truly don't think so, as a successful speciesl one can describe it to be fully adapted, harmonal, and balanced with the environment. Humans are not; we consume every resource, populate every land mass, destroy one another, poach nearly ever animal species to extinction, and virtually consume our own living environment. the way we are heading, we're destroying ourselves.

If man never existed our earth would be a much cleaner, more successful environment and not an unbalanced ecosystem. In what way are we superior or better?

 

[RaDragon]

Now I know why I feel we are going in a circle -- I did not fully address your original question/post:



<< what makes a human think that we are any better, or superior than any other animal. Simply because we have evolved in a way that is advantageous to thought and that we are capable of adaptation, does this make us any better than an animal. >>



The examples I have provided thus far merely explain what separates us from animals and does not assume that we are &quot;superior&quot;.



<< Animals have been known to learn, to pick up concepts, to navigate mazes with decreasing times as trials increase. They are able to learn and make intelligent decisions based on that learning. I think that you have difficulty actually understanding the definition of thinking. Thinking doesn't mean pondering the meaning to the universe or anything spectacular like that. Rather, it starts as learning from experience, then deriving from that (even though what you are pondering may be beyond that which you have experienced). That is the nature of all thinking. >>



&quot;Doubting your desire to know reveals your wonder&quot; -- Human beings have the capacity to wonder and doubt.

 

[8ball]

<< In what way are we superior or better >>


Are you wanting to stay within the &quot;non religious involved&quot; theories?

 

[RaDragon]

I feel like I'm back in my Intro to Philosophy class (Human Nature)... Mesomorph, you wouldn't happen to be my professor trying to quiz me on concepts long forgotten?!

Anyway, feel free to PM or send me an email to discuss this further at a later time. Right now, this &quot;human being&quot; needs her beauty rest.

 

[pamchenko]

<< better system for procreation and are more likely to procreate outside of this world. >>


as long as you survive to transmit your genetic material to another generation and the ensuing generation has the same means to do pass on the genes, that makes it a viable species. There are various approaches to transmitting genetic information like having a bunch of progeny or just having 1 or 2 and taking care of them.

and what does having kids in outerspace have to do with anything.

 

[Dexion]

<< Are you wanting to stay within the &quot;non religious involved&quot; theories? >>



Religious theories are truly irrelevant to species superiority.

 

[8ball]

<< Religious theories are truly irrelevant to species superiority. >>


Not true. The Christian religion believes that humans were made in God's image. That alone would make them superior. Also, God told the humans that the animals were here to do the human's bidding. That animals were to be ruled by humans.

 

[Comp10]

<< Religious theories are truly irrelevant to species superiority. >>

Your right they should be, however, a lot of people use religion as justification to destroy other species (including their own as the crusades among other things reminds us) and to help promote their egoism.

 

[thraashman]

It depends on what kind of animal. I mean humans have a nice tangy taste to them, I'd compare them to a nice and tender steak. It depends on what I'm feeling like for dinner. Sometimes chicken is better, sometimes human.

.... and a nice chianti.

 

[8ball]

<< a lot of people use religion as justification... >>


This is true, but not the way God intended (my opinion). *religious argument* This is very simple. Using the points I gave previously, humans were made better than animals by God.
*Non religious argument* This is equally simple. All animals (including humans) were not created equally. The strongest are the best.

 

[Dexion]

<< Not true. The Christian religion believes that humans were made in God's image. That alone would make them superior. Also, God told the humans that the animals were here to do the human's bidding. That animals were to be ruled by humans. >>



Not true. Christianity is not the only religion in this world.

If GOD did exist and truly vowed to his &quot;10 commandments&quot; then us &quot;children&quot; of GOD have broken all the commandments in the Bible. Why are we not punished? &quot;Created in his own image&quot; can be taken literally, not everything that looks identical on the outside is remotely the same.

Using the Bible as reference does not prove our superiority.

 

[Elledan]

When looking at the Human body, you'll see that this body is weak. We can't run hard, jump high, need clothes for our protection against the weather, etc.

From a physological point of view, most animals are far more superior to Humans. A meeting between any predator from a reasonable size will lead to the death of the Human.
That is, until we use this little intellect we have. We create weapons, tools which replace the functions of sharp fangs, claws and other means of defense and attack.

We were so successful with those weapons that we can kill now all animals that are greater than a small dog without any problem. Only smaller creatures (termites) are still giving us trouble.

But take away the weapons from a Human and it's defenseless again. It can only run away, but that won't help much against a predator. They run faster.

So, we killed all predators that bothered us or at least have driven them back to some uninhabited piece of land. However the same we did with many other creatures we couldn't use. We've now come at the point that we're causing mass-extinctions simply by means of expanding of our territory.

Calling Humans 'intelligent' depends much on the individual state of each Human. Some will believe anything or just don't bother about anything but their own life. Those are the most common.
There are also Humans who do bother about the environment as well, but then not much further than the Human territory. Those are less common.
Far less common are those who look beyond the Human territory, ideals and illusions. But to those, not much attention is given.

&quot;In a crowd, those who say the wisest words will be ignored by the rest of the crowd, for the crowd obeys the majority, not those who are the wisest.&quot;

An excellent example of how the wisest are being ignored is that space-shuttle which exploded in mid-air (with the teacher in it, I forgot the name ), if the crowd (NASA) had listened to the research institute which had investigated any possible problems with low launch temperatures. They told NASA that it wasn't safe to launch the space-shuttle with those low temperatures, because it could lead to a disaster with those rubber O-rings who could start to leak. But because it costed the NASA millions of dollars every day to keep the shuttle ready for launch, they ignored the report and launched the space-shuttle.

The results of this action are well-known.

 

[datalink7]

To decide whether we are &quot;superior&quot; we would have to define superiority. If you would define it as being on the top of the food chain, then we have it. If you define it as having developed high levels of tools/technology, then we are. If you would say you are superior by how we can develope thoughts, we probably are (primates and dolphins/whales might be able to give us a run for our money, though we don't know yet without more research). Our ability to express wonderment? Primates and dolphines/whales probably, with their high intelligence level, hold the ability to feel wonderment.

So you would have to define superior. We are better in some ways, probably in most of the ways that are important to survival, to &quot;animals.&quot; But there are plenty of ways that animals are superior. For instance, go into hand-to-hand combat with a bear. Who's going to win? The bear is obvioulsy superior here.

 

[8ball]

I was using Christianity as one example that one religion has an answer to this question. Using the bible as a reference is valid when using Christianity as an argument.

 

[Dexion]

<< All animals (including humans) were not created equally.&quot; >>



Untrue. What makes a us unequally more superior?



<< The strongest are the best. >>


Not necessarily true, your referring to &quot;survival of the fittest&quot;. Unfortunately, our brief existance as a species on Earth does not prove that we are superior in anyway, infact our own kind is leading ourselves to doom. The reptile has survived hundreds of million years whereas humans have only existed a brief 30,000 years.

 

[Comp10]

<< This is true, but not the way God intended (my opinion). *religious argument* This is very simple. Using the points I gave previously, humans were made better than animals by God. >>

How is using god to justify the killing of animals any better than using god to justify the killing of non-believers? In both cases you are destroying what you believe in your self-righteousness to be &quot;inferior&quot; to yourself.

In my view animals are no different that we are, only they are simply less evolved so to speak. No different that comparing an adult to a child. Would you consider a child to be inferior to yourself? Of course not, the child simply hasn't had the time to become something &quot;better.&quot; So likewise, for us to dominate other species to the point of extinction would be the same as us slaughtering our children.

 

[thraashman]

does everything here eventually turn into a religious argument. jeez I'm tired of them.

 

[Dexion]

<< I was using Christianity as one example that one religion has an answer to this question. Using the bible as a reference is valid when using Christianity as an argument. >>



Using the Bible is irrelevant. The Bible is not a historical timeline, the bible consists of scriptures that were written for the purpose of teaching moral values and faith. The origins of most scriptures were once passed along through the word of mouth and memorization making the accuracy of the bible itself very skeptical. One cannot say that man has one less rib.

Therefore, the use of the Bible as a reference for this debate is irrelevant.