Humans: the master race?

people who are terminally ill, or disabled have about the same likelihood of helping our civilization as an animal.

Yeah sure disabled people can't do antyhing.

why do you still consider their lives more important than an animal's life, unless you just down-right discriminate?

You know not every one agrees with what you think. I don't agree with you. So don't even say that I'm discriminate. I value human life disabled, terminally ill, blind whatever more then that of animal becaue a human life is more importent to me.

So please don't every call me discriminate again. I will go to a mod with it.

 

a human life is more importent to me.

as a human, you are entitled to that view, and i dont disagree with it.

my point of making this thread was to look at animal/human life without the bias of being a human, so i guess some of my words could be considered harsh.

 

my point of making this thread was to look at animal/human life without the bias of being a human, so i guess some of my words could be considered harsh.

And as someone else said that can't be done. It's like trying to tell someone to put more value in the life of puppy or there life of there child.

Or telling someone else that a the family cat is more importent then little Johnny if a fire starts. You can get a new cat you can't get a new little Johnny. There is only one little Johnny.

You only have one mother, fahter, sister, bother, etc. You can't get a new one of something bad happens to them. You can get a new cat, or dog, or bird, and even a fish.

How can any one look at any animal life or human life and not have a bais of valueing the human life? It can't be done. No matter what is said the animal just does not have as much value as that of a human life.

 

your argument was that human lives are more important than animal lives becasue human lives could potentially end up helping our civilization.

I don't speak for him, but my argument was slightly different...human lives are more important because they're human lives, period. Whether or not they help our civilization is not relevant. They are human. One cracked-out drug addict who sleeps under newspapers in an alley every night is more important than any animal species.

why do you still consider their lives more important than an animal's life, unless you just down-right discriminate?

Me? I discriminate. No question about it.

 

Right, but we should not be exalting them to our level or higher (Yes, I have met people before who think we are scum and animals are somehow better than us.)

I know, I was not. A human is worth more then a cow, dog, or fish. But all life is precious and we shouldn't treat it so callously.

 

Guns > claws, teeth, or anything else

Animal rights activists = pwned.

Claws, teeth and physical might are natural weapons. The only reason humans use guns is because we lack natural defence mechanisms.

How are they "pwned"?

But as long as an animal doesn't speak out, it doesn't have an opinion.

Does a mute person not have any opinions?

Even the simplest life form doesn't want to die. Even simple organisms without central nervous system have an instinctive urge to continue the existence of their species in any way possible.

Over time, animals have developed traits in order to protect themselves. Chameleons have camoflauge in order to hide from predators; tortoises have shells that serve as natural body armour; octopi have soft bodies which allow them to squeeze into small niches. It is not only the instincts of any species to continue their existance, it is natural adaptation that allows their existance.

Another thing, that proves our superiority to animals by making their survival instincts futile, we have the ability to think and figure out how to counter anything an animal does to us.

What would you do about a poisonous snakebite? What would you do when a squid shot ink at you? What would your human superiority do to aid you?

Tell me this, why is it inhumane and against the law to destroy an eagle egg yet perfectly legal to destroy human fetuses and embryos?

Thanks to human development and devastating their natural habitats, eagles are an endangered species. If an eagle egg is destroyed, it drastically reduces the limited number of eagle offspring that can potentially hatch. Fewer eagles in a habitat simply upsets the natural equilibrium. Once eagles are extinct, their role cannot be upheld and the entire community in the habitat will be disrupted. Their prey will simply reproduce to new heights then starve due to lack of food for themselves.

Humans are not an endangered species, we endanger other species.

True, but one of those embryos might end up being a president of the USA, or might be the one to find the cure for AIDS, a pill to remove cancers, etc. Nobody knows, so killing them could potentially endanger the human race in the first place, not to mention many people do have a moral problem with it.

A human has the choice to abort a fetus. Not all humans subscribe to the same morals, so there are people who find it an acceptable practice.

I know my 100lb labrador retriever would try to save my life before it tried to save the life of one of my female retrievers.

A retriever can defend itself. A human cannot and it is within the retriever's instincts to defend its bretheren who cannot do it on their own.

they will never contribute anything.
maybe you should go test chemicals on them, since you have defined their existence as obsolete.

Each organism has a place within the biosphere. Each organism has the potential to reproduce thus continuing its species.

An organism is an organism.

 

Claws, teeth and physical might are natural weapons. The only reason humans use guns is because we lack natural defence mechanisms.

By that logic, isn't our intelligence a "natural defense mechanism"? Since we don't have fangs, claws, speed, etc., our intelligence, coupled with our ability to make tools (such as firearms) is the only thing that's kept us alive so long.

What would you do about a poisonous snakebite?

First, I'd smash the snake's head with a big rock. I'd take it home, skin it, cook it, and eat it. Then, if there's time, I'd get to a hospital and have antivenom administered. This goes back to what I just said about intelligence being our weapon. We are superior to venom because we have developed medicine to counter it.

What would you do when a squid shot ink at you?

Snag it with a harpoon gun and eat it.

Their prey will simply reproduce to new heights then starve due to lack of food for themselves.

Not necessarily. Most birds of prey feed on rodents, and even though rats and mice breed quickly, other predators like bobcats, foxes, badgers, raccoons and the like would prey on them in the eagles' place.

 

And as someone else said that can't be done. It's like trying to tell someone to put more value in the life of puppy or there life of there child.

stop trying to turn this into a matter of "all life is euqal = saving animals and letting humans die"

what i am saying is that if there was a fair and just intermediary between us and animals, our lives would not be considered superior just becasue we are smarter.

Although we have a belief that we are better, and we have the power to institute that belief, it does not make it a law of nature.

 

Claws, teeth and physical might are natural weapons. The only reason humans use guns is because we lack natural defence mechanisms.

By that logic, isn't our intelligence a "natural defense mechanism"? Since we don't have fangs, claws, speed, etc., our intelligence, coupled with our ability to make tools (such as firearms) is the only thing that's kept us alive so long.



That is exactly the response I planned on taking. Our superiority is shown there because we are able to take non-natural things and make them suit our needs. What seperates us is the fact we think for ourselves, we do not have the same generic instincts across the board as most animals do.

No one can deny the fact humans are a unique species unlike any other. There are those species that have certain similarities to us, but they are not like us or else they would have risen to our level.

Either one of two things lies key here:
1) Man was created in the image of God and set apart from other mammals
2) We are of a much higher evolutionary process than any other animal, making us superior.

Whether you are an evolutionist or creationist, animals rights or not, religious or atheist, humans are superior and the fact cannot be denied.

Now, as a superior race we are to care for the other ones that we do hurt or could hurt, but not in an extremist matter that makes an animal more valuable than a human life.

EDIT: To make a joke here, what ever happened to survival of the fittest

 

For those who are using religion to say animals are to be used by humans, you're wrong. The same Bible says that God created Adam and manking to take care of and protect all other life. And doesn't Jesus say to LOVE thy neighbor? He doesn't say male neighbor, he doesn't say right neighbor, he doesn't say Jewish, he doesn't say HUMAN neighbor, he just says NEIGHBOR.

I believe we will never have peace until we give all life (all humans, all animals, artificial life, etc) our love and the equal oppurtunity to live life the way we all choose to.

 

I might be going out on a limb here, but I think I could take issue with anyone suggesting as a blanket statement that humans are superior to other animals.

All you can really say is that humans are marvellously adaptable by virtue of our evolved intelligence. We are able to construct and manipulate a model of the world which we carry inside our minds, and we use that model to predict the future. In essence, we can run simulations of likely future events based on past experience (whether directly experienced or passed on to us by fellow humans by (hurrah!) language) and we can choose effective strategies accordingly. This is combined with an ability to manipulate our external environment by being extremely adept with our hands (although the number of typos I can see while I write this does make me wonder).

All this has made us extremely successful, especially if the criteria you use for judging us is our ability to survive for extended periods of time in apparently hostile environments. But am I actually superior to a jellyfish at living an entirely marine based existence? How do I compare to an oak tree for longevity and the ability to produce offspring?

Humans seem naturally very impressive to other humans. I would suggest this is probably because we judge ourselves by our own criteria - how good we are at being human. We have a certain egotism that makes us consider ourselves as a finishing post, the natural end product of existence rather than simply another staging post along the way.

To look at it another way, what if our inability to maintain an effective balance with our environment means that we actually end up making ourselves extinct in another thousand years or so? If we had the luxury of hindsight would we still maintain that we were self evidently better than certain dinosaurs that managed to keep going for tens, even hundreds of millions of years? If longevity became the sole criteria for success surely that would make us a big fat zero!

 

If any other animal made it to the top of the food chain, they would exploit and indulge just like humans. That is the whole concept of nature being in balance; when one species does get too powerful they (for example) eat everything until there is nothing else left to eat, then die out until balance is achieved again.

The only difference is that humans are smart enough to (so far, maybe in the future we wont) keep our food and other supplies growing with us. Maybe we will hit that limit that everything else in nature has. Maybe we will find some unique solution later down the road. My point is that if any other animal were on the top they would probably be no different.

My cat is immoral in a way. I would say she is somewhat aware, and she toys with mice! Cruelly plays with their lives before getting board and killing them.

Man is superior because we don't adapt to the enviroment, we make enviroments adapt to us.

Not always. Did the Eskimos made the tundra warm? We try to make our environment adapt to us, but we will also adapt to the environment when we have to. To say it is one or the other is folly.


Well, where do rights come from? If they come from men then it is pretty much popular vote and what makes sense. If there is something greater (god), then follow those rules.


Yes, because of technology...which will ultimately be the downfall of humans, in my opinion.

Could someone explain this? It has been technology (for many religious people, our knowledge and intelligence [original sin]) that has made this race great. Anyone who has worn clothes, gotten a vaccine, drove a car, or posted on this board has benefited from this strength of humanity that is science and technology. So please explain. I understand that there are bad things that humans have done/are doing by using this power, but I don't see that power itself being our downfall.

There are far more efficient species on this planet that don't screw up their environment.

Only in a handful of ways, but not overall, or else they would be on the top.

But again, our gray matter is what put us on top as a species. Our ability to reason things out and do 'new' things is what got us to the top. If we want the fruit on the top of the tree, but can't reach it, we figure out a way to get up there instead of wait for evolution to turn us into giraffes. Also dealing with our shortcomings, minimizing weaknesses (like our lack of claws/sharp teeth...) is another strength of humans.

testing products on them and caging them up is what i have a problem with.

But we are animals too, so what should we test on?

It doesn't take intelligence to point and pull a trigger, nor to reload.

Um, yes it does. I think it is obvious that intelligence is a big part of developing guns (and all other mechanical devices) given that humans are the
only species that makes and uses guns. That is different from using guns, but one must be made before one can be fired.

a life is a life, no matter how insignifigant you might think it is, compared to your own race.

How can you say that given you have killed millions of virus's and bacteria, not to mention you letting your millions of cells die in their regular processes? Compare the significance of an amoeba to the significance of a human. Are they the same?

True, but one of those embryos might end up being a president of the USA, or might be the one to find the cure for AIDS, a pill to remove cancers, etc.

It may also be the next Hitler, Pol Pot, bin Laden... care to gamble

so life by itself is meaningless? is that what your saying?

Isn't it? Just a very basic example. Lets say there is a great pianist. Composes and plays beautiful music, can bring a person to tears or laughter just by touching the ivories. Then lets say that for some reason he can never play the piano again (losses hands or something). That ability is now meaningless. More general example. What point is there in living if you a

 

Up for THIS.

 

Humans the Master race? Well, it seems we have the greatest mood swings. That might account for something. But sometimes I wish I were a squirrel, a bird, or a house cat.

I think people underestimate the emotions of animals. I feel bad for eating so many animals every day, but really not that bad, and I'm just going along with it. I could never be a vegetarian though, unless everyone else was.

Interestingly, if you read eastern philosphy, their version of ascension, would be to remove more and more rational thinking. Which means that lower forms of life are actually closer to perfection than we are. You have to hand it to them.

The "smartest" creatures on the planet are the ones who are destroying it. Makes you think, maybe monkeys are actually an evolution from humans. They don't need clothes, government, inventions, or anything to stay alive.

Or maybe we are devolving. Instead of evolving.

Well...I wouldn't trade the ability to communicate verbally for the self-reliance enjoyed by monkeys.

 

Humans rule the planet because we are not animals, you idiots. Animals were put on the earth for humans to eat and enjoy, so we are obviously above them. Who, besides hippies, gives a damn about the chickens and the whales and the 'oppressed' animals of this world? Its not like they have feelings, or are our relatives. And dont give me that hippie 'we're all descended from a common ancestor, we're all animals' crap, unless you have any evidence.

So, in short, oppress the animals and slaughter the cows, because they are there for us to eat. We are above them.

 

Heh heh....and your screen name is Gandhi...

I agree with you that we are above other species. However, humans are still animals. We are obviously not plants, protists, fungi, or monerans. We are mammals (or, more specifically, primates). Thus, we belong in the animal kingdom.

 

Animals do too have feelings. But that's not stopping me from eating them.

 

Like all things in life, this can be summed up with a Simpsons quote:

"Make no mistake, Billy. If a cow had the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"

Now, it must be said, I like animals. I've got two dogs. They kick ass. Anyone try's to mess with my dogs, they get a sharp bit 'o silver to the throat. But I still eat meat. It just tastes so good, and I'm always hungry if I don't have at least a little during the day. Meals without meat just aren't meals.

Still, I hate it when people abuse animals. Like some **** who kicks his dog around, or some such. I don't believe animals are equal to us, but I do believe in decent treatment of them. Natural superiority is no excuse for cruelty.

 

Any thoughts on the article I posted earlier? It seems like there would be more of a public outcry over something so ****ed up.

 

Yeah, well, that IS PETA. It's not exactly a shock to me.

 

im not sure what "evidence" could ever convince someone that you are irrevocably superior to another creature.

Hell, i mean its not so much species as it is understanding. If they ever created a super-moneky in a lab somewhere and gave him intellegence and the ability to speak, im sure people would'nt be so quick to inform him just how inferior he was and start testing chemicals on him.

in the end, pain that can be expressed wins sympathy, and pain that cannot be expressed is forgotten.

 

"If they ever 'created' a super-moneky in a lab"

And who would the "they" be? Humans who were intelligent enough to "create" a super-monkey in a lab.
Now if monkeys got together and created a super human.