Are Humans superior to other animals?

[Don]

A simple poll to address an issue raised in another thread.

[Jcomp]

Bozhe moi! Making selections viewable.

Anywho, until the discovery of an alien intelligence that is on par with or greater than Earth-human awareness and intelligence, I'm of the mind that human life is the most sacred and precious anything in the known universe. For the time being, anyway.

[Elaine Margarett]

Are humans superior to animals...in what way?

I see many ways in which animals are superior to humans. Maternal instincts to name just one.

[Bird of Prey]

I guess I don't understand. What was wrong with the other thread? Is this an exercise in repeating ourselves here??

[Don]

I was just curious about the general concensus here. Thus the poll.

[Bird of Prey]

I see.

[Dawnstorm]

May I demonstrate my bias by modifying the question?

Are humans superior to other animals? [ETA: Wait! the "other" is already in the title. Never mind me. :o ]

That said, despite an emotional but half-hearted "no", I voted other - which in my case means: I don't trust humans to set down inter-species standards and not play favourites. The question, to me, is an invitation to either join or sabotage the humans'r'us club, and I'm not interested.

Maybe I should go look for the thread that started it all. Apes and human rights, I suppose?

[backslashbaby]

I need to find the other thread, too. Ooops.

I think yes and no, overall. I think we complicate things too much sometimes. We could learn some simplicity from the furry folks occasionally.

[whistlelock]

Yes, and for two reasons only: We have opposable thumbs AND we're not scared of vacuum cleaners.

[tjwriter]

My dogs attack the vacuum cleaner. My 3 year old runs from it.

Food for thought, whistlelock.

[semilargeintestine]

May I demonstrate my bias by modifying the question?
Are humans superior to other animals?[ETA: Wait! the "other" is already in the title. Never mind me. :o ]

That said, despite an emotional but half-hearted "no", I voted other - which in my case means: I don't trust humans to set down inter-species standards and not play favourites. The question, to me, is an invitation to either join or sabotage the humans'r'us club, and I'm not interested.

Maybe I should go look for the thread that started it all. Apes and human rights, I suppose?

Not sure I understand. You don't trust humans, but you trust other animals who kill and eat different species in order to further their own?

[SPMiller]

Radical progressive liberal SPMiller says, "Humans are superior to all other species we're currently aware of."

But as noted elsewhere, I don't believe we should use this to justify total disregard for other life. Merely that humanity should take precedence.

[archerjoe]

Do we have to include Paris Hilton? Up to that point, I'd say yes.

[IdiotsRUs]

Superior? No

More advanced in some areas? Yes.

[JimmyB27]

Well, I am. Dunno about the rest of you....;)

[AMCrenshaw]

I chose other, because my answer is:



lol






AMC

[Justin91]

Bozhe moi! Making selections viewable.

Anywho, until the discovery of an alien intelligence that is on par with or greater than Earth-human awareness and intelligence, I'm of the mind that human life is the most sacred and precious anything in the known universe. For the time being, anyway.


Agreed.

[Cyia]

Humans are superior enough that they should take responsibility as stewards over those further down the chain and make the decisions those other animals are unable to make - in much the way we would for a human unable to make such decisions.

The rights of other animals should never out weigh the rights of human beings, but that doesn't mean animals should be abused.

[Perks]

What a silly question.

Put a hungry human in a room with a well-stocked, but padlocked, refrigerator and a key on a hook on the wall.

Identical room. Identical hunger conditions. But the animal is a tiger.

Who is superior?

Now put a hungry tiger in a room with a hungry human.

Who is superior now, veal-boy?

We're better at algebra. But, if I had to outrun a fire or an avalanche, I'd rather be a horse.

[jennontheisland]

ah, the self-satisfying feeling of self-described self-superiority.

[Rowan]

If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth - beings who considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals - would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals? ~Attributed to George Bernard Shaw


For the record, my vote is "No" (and yes, I'm in the minority).... especially if you're defining superior as "of higher rank, quality, or importance'" (Webster's).

[robeiae]

*finishes Big MacTM, wipes mouth with sleeve, accidently knocks over super-size Diet CokeTM, soaking own cell-phone and a nearby small child, burps loudly*

'Course I's better than sum dum aminal!

[Dawnstorm]

Not sure I understand. You don't trust humans, but you trust other animals who kill and eat different species in order to further their own?

Well, I wouldn't trust otters either to set standards in the question whether otters are superior to other animals.

"Superior" relies on values. Humans rig the game to come out on top and feel good about themselves. The Humans'r'us club. I don't feel better about myself saying that humans are superior; I feel silly. I do feel better about myself saying that humans are not superior to animals, but then, when I think about it, I feel just as silly, which kind of cancels out that effect.

[Wayne K]

For many reasons I don't want to spend three pages defending my opinion about. No.

[Snowstorm]

Superior? No

More advanced in some areas? Yes.

IdiotsRUs said it better than I ever could. I don't think a superior animal would have babies only to toss them into trash cans or beat them to death. I don't think a superior animal would pollute the environment making the environment hazardous for every living thing. I agree with Cyia, that we should be stewards for other animals.

[robeiae]

Except for other animals that are pests and/or gross, of course.

[Tiger]

What a silly question.

Put a hungry human in a room with a well-stocked, but padlocked, refrigerator and a key on a hook on the wall.

Identical room. Identical hunger conditions. But the animal is a tiger.

Who is superior?

Now put a hungry tiger in a room with a hungry human.

Who is superior now, veal-boy?

We're better at algebra. But, if I had to outrun a fire or an avalanche, I'd rather be a horse.

(Burp..!)

[clintl]

It depends on which human you're comparing to which animal.

[CACTUSWENDY]

In many ways....yes.

[Diana Hignutt]

It depends on which human you're comparing to which animal.

How about Donald Trump and Lassie?

[robeiae]

How about Donald Trump and Lassie?
They have the same hair. Literally.

[Death Wizard]

*finishes Big MacTM, wipes mouth with sleeve, accidently knocks over super-size Diet CokeTM, soaking own cell-phone and a nearby small child, burps loudly*

'Course I's better than sum dum aminal!

I love Diet Coke.

[DeleyanLee]

Superior? No

More advanced in some areas? Yes.

QTF

[Zoombie]

IdiotsRUs said it better than I ever could. I don't think a superior animal would have babies only to toss them into trash cans or beat them to death. I don't think a superior animal would pollute the environment making the environment hazardous for every living thing. I agree with Cyia, that we should be stewards for other animals.

Yes, but there are animals that murder their children, rape, kill eachother, commit wholesale genocide, destroy environments...

[Perks]

Except for other animals that are pests and/or gross, of course.
I don't know. Can you survive a spin in microwave? A cockroach can.

[Zoombie]

For example, Lions are misogynistic pricks. Ants will exterminate whole colonies of other ants. Japanese Hornets like eating babies of smaller, less able to defend themselves hornets. Deer and antelope use those horns for more than just show. Dolphins just flat our murder Porpoises for no apparent reason, and chimps commit rape daily...

Nature is beautiful. There are wonderful, nice, and amazing things in nature.

Nature is also cruel. There are horrible, monstrous things that will kill you if you look at them funny.

[The Grump]

Superior? Inferior? By which characteristics?

[Zoombie]

Anyone seen Babylon 5?

"The third principle of sentient life is its capacity for self-sacrifice, for a cause, a loved one, for a friend."

Now, they never say what the first two principles are, but...well, that's a pretty good one right there.

[Toothpaste]

Yes.

They have the ability to reason, to create great beauty, to advance civilisations, to cure diseases, to not always depend on their basest of instincts.

I could never say we are equal to animals who have no scope to understand the world greater than them.

I know people will then point to the evils that humans do but in my mind it is those evils that demonstrate how superior we are. Killing, rape, no care for anyone else but yourself, that is behaving like an animal, off of instinct alone. Those who live by their baser self interested instincts, those who behave more like animals, are not in that same category that I consider superior. Because they are behaving like animals.

And look, I love animals. I know they feel pain, feel joy, and I truly believe they feel love. I'm not saying, "Woo-hoo humans rock, let's go stone a kitten!" But come on. We are superior by the fact that we have reason alone. We are superior because we can have threads on magical boxes that connect us with other humans around the world where we can debate if we are superior or not.

A debate that I have no doubt is one that is highly based on semantics and the definition of a word.

Now do we deserve to exist more than any other creature therefore, of course not. Each creature on the planet is here for a reason. We have a responsibility in being superior to take care of the others. With great power comes great responsibility.

Oh we're also superior because we invented comic books.

[Perks]

I agree. I don't think the stone of human savagery in one tray of the balance outweighs our higher and nobler achievements in the other.

I guess I can't quite understand the point of calculating an answer to 'are we superior?'. What other animals do have going for them is that when they chase their tails, it's a real tangible one fixed to their ass.

[Ruv Draba]

The question of superiority sounds like an excuse to misbehave to me. If I feel superior to you then I get to treat you badly and not be accountable for that, even if I know you're suffering. It means that my desires matter more than your needs. Superiority isn't a state of being, but a social posture, a political conceit, a way of ignoring our own pangs of empathy and conscience.

Throughout history humans have tried to find evidence for this posture. Here are some of the arguments, and their flaws.

Humans are the only tool-using animals
Fallacious -- chimps use sticks; birds build nests and drop rocks to break nuts; ants make boats out of leaves.
Humans are the only animals with speech
Fallacious -- many animals communicate vocally, and chimps can learn nouns, verbs and grammars.
Humans are the only self-aware animals
Fallacious -- elephants and chimps will consciously adjust their appearance in a mirror.
Humans are the only animals that can write
Chimps and elephants can recognise glyphs, and many species mark physical objects with scent. Moreover, some humans can't write. Does that make them an inferior species?
Humans are the only animals with conscience
Fallacious -- a dog's behaviour changes when it's broken rules -- even if it was unobserved.
Only humans can plan and anticipate
Fallacious -- predator behaviour shows astute anticipation and pack hunting behaviour is learned coordinated behaviour
Only humans form civilisations
Patently false. Even insects maintain complex, self-sustaining social orders and different troops of baboons demonstrate their own distinct customs.
Only humans have a soul
Unproven, and different cultures have different beliefs about this. So far there's insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate convincingly that anything has a soul, and no sign of such evidence appearing.
But the ethical question here is: what do we owe other species? What do we owe individuals? What do we owe a species collectively? A starting position of 'My species is superior to any other' doesn't seem helpful in answering that question. It's simply seems an excuse to plunder without accountability.

[Zoombie]

Ruv, you got it backwards in my mind. Being superior is not an excuse to plunder...its a call for custodian ship. If you're at the top, you owe everyone below you. If you're the dominent species, you should keep your planet from turning into a sludge hole.

[Ruv Draba]

Ruv, you got it backwards in my mind. Being superior is not an excuse to plunder...its a call for custodian ship.I think that the moral state of one's civilisation is demonstrated by good stewardship; it doesn't by itself entail a right to stewardship of other species or other civilisations.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin's Descent of Man was used to provide political justification for the powers of Europe to carve up Africa. By the end of the 19th century, there were only two countries in Africa that weren't occupied by colonial interests. The political argument? That racial superiority is a call for stewardship. Here's how Kipling put it:
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child
In fact, this 'stewardship' of Africa was driven entirely by greed. Beyond the rich resources in that continent, Britain and France wanted faster access to their Asian interests. Even Italy took a piece of Africa, just to keep up with the rest of Europe.

Our interest in 'stewardship' of other species has always principally been economic. We are careful stewards of pigs and sheep (which species would probably now be extinct without our care); we are indifferent stewards of things that have no economic value. Such stewardship is driven by self-interest; I don't think we can pretend otherwise. The ethical question: 'what do we owe other species' -- can't be dealt with fairly by notions of superiority and stewardship because that immediately rules out one possible answer: 'to leave them alone'.

[Zoombie]

I'm just saying how it SHOULD be...if the world was a perfect and fuzzy place, wherein Ron Paul flies through the air in his blimp, giving a home to all the kittens of the world.

Unfortunately, in real life, people use words like stewardship as a rationalization for extremely dickish behavior.

[Ruv Draba]

I'm just saying how it SHOULD be...It's a broader position, but I think that our capacity for morality depends on how wealthy we are and how educated. Humans in the developed world have a much bigger range of ethical choices now that they don't have to hunt in their own habitat for food... On the other hand, that just means we chew a lot more habitat per individual than any other species: the habitat where we live; the habitat where our food is grown; the habitat where our primary materials are sourced; and the habitat where our manufacturing occurs.

['Environmental Footprint' only makes sense to talk about if you realise that every human has five feet. :D]

So, I'm not trying to provide an answer here. I'm just challenging the premise of the question (which is why I voted 'other'). Species-supremacist thinking made a certain mythic sense when everyone was a shepherd, and farms were surrounded by hostile woods. I don't think it makes any kind of sense when we're living like marmosets in apartment blocks and our food comes from the other side of the world and hardly anyone can tell you what colour a dodo was.

A better question -- indeed, I think the fundamental one -- is: is our conscience stronger than our self-interested instincts? It's not whether we're superior to other animals, but whether we're superior to the animals inside us.

(My answer, by the way, is: Not yet.)

[clintl]

How about Donald Trump and Lassie?

Definitely Lassie.

[StephanieFox]

Bulldogs are superior to humans.

[Ruv Draba]

If I could do what an average male bulldog can do, I'd feel superior too.

[Death Wizard]

If I could do what an average male bulldog can do, I'd feel superior too.

You mean, you can't? (Walks away, whistling.)

[C.bronco]

We are clearly superior because we don't poop on the carpet.

[katiemac]

Has anyone here read Ishmael?

From wiki:

Ishmael is a 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_literature) philosophical novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_novel) by Daniel Quinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Quinn). It examines mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology), its effect on ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_%28philosophy%29), and how that relates to sustainability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability). The novel uses a style of Socratic dialogue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue) to deconstruct the notion that humans are the end product, the pinnacle of biological evolution. It posits that human supremacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism) is a cultural myth, and asserts that modern civilization is "enacting" that myth.

If you're in any way interested in this topic, I suggest you read it, even if to disagree.

[Death Wizard]

Compassion is our greatest asset in the superiority department.

[Williebee]

We are clearly superior because we don't poop on the carpet.
Miss Cynthia was fortunate enough to miss out on some aspects of college dorm living.
:)

[rugcat]

We are clearly superior because we don't poop on the carpet.Dogs are clearly superior, because they poop on the carpet and we clean it up for them.

Not to mention, if two species are out walking together, one stops to take a crap and the other stoops down and picks it up, which one is really in charge?

[Cyia]

I dunno, I had 2 cats. One would poop and the other would cover it.

[StephanieFox]

My little bulldog would never, ever poo on the carpet. That's why our house has hardwood floors.

(snort!)

[StephanieFox]

Bulldogs are superior to humans.

I didn't post this. My bulldog must have logged in as me.

[aruna]

We are clearly superior because we don't poop on the carpet.

Wait a minute, you don't????

[Zoombie]

One can argue ethically, or morally, or culturally, humanity may or may not be superior than animals, but one thing you CAN'T argue is technological superiority. Apes and Chimps use rocks and other basic tools. We can re-engineer genetics and, if we really want too, destroy the entire world...or make it into whatever we want.

That power is inarguable, and it just underscores the fact that we should custodianiate this planet.

And custodianiate should totally be a word.

[SPMiller]

In terms of descriptive linguistics, if you make up a word and we understand what you mean, it's a valid word.

[robeiae]

I don't know. Can you survive a spin in microwave? A cockroach can.
My comment is in repsonse to Snowstorm's:


I agree with Cyia, that we should be stewards for other animals.

Except for other animals that are pests and/or gross, of course.
Ever hear anyone saying "stop killing rats!", "don't harm those termites!", or the like? To say nothing of protecting tapeworms...

[robeiae]

Has anyone here read Ishmael?

If you're in any way interested in this topic, I suggest you read it, even if to disagree.
Interesting. I'll check it out.

Imo, we're part of nature. So, whatever we do is as "natural" as what any other animal does.

[Don]

Imo, we're part of nature. So, whatever we do is as "natural" as what any other animal does.
:popcorn:

Nailed it in one... but the outrage should be spectacular to watch.

I've got a plan to protect all the rats, bats, roaches, snakes and other critters people don't much care for. Box 'em up and ship 'em to your congresscritter so they can protect them. With all the bloodsucking parasites in DC already, who'd notice a few more?

[tjwriter]

If we're talking about sight or scent, then no, no we're not by far.

[Rowan]

My comment is in repsonse to Snowstorm's:

Ever hear anyone saying "stop killing rats!"....or the like?

Yep :)

[Cyia]

If we're talking about sight or scent, then no, no we're not by far.

Yet humans have the ability to enhance or correct the sight and hearing of other humans :D

[tjwriter]

Yet humans have the ability to enhance or correct the sight and hearing of other humans :D
Unfortunately, mechanical replacements lack that instinctual life to them that were there with the things they are fixing. They might be sufficient, but they are not superior.

[Cyia]

Unfortunately, mechanical replacements lack that instinctual life to them that were there with the things they are fixing. They might be sufficient, but they are not superior.

The act of correcting a defect or deficiency by reason of compassion and by means of design is what makes the act superior.

[tjwriter]

I don't argue that our mechanical capacity nor our comprehension abilities are greater than most, but animals are compassionate too and nurturing.

I think we might have better grades on some areas of the report, but I hardly think we're the only one with A's.

[rugcat]

I've got a plan to protect all the rats, bats, roaches, snakes and other critters people don't much care for.Glad to hear it, Rats are fascinating creatures, much like humans -- smart, adaptable, and survivors. It's said there as many rats in NYC as there are people. Here's (http://www.amazon.com/Rats-Observations-History-Unwanted-Inhabitants/dp/1582344779/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255799662&sr=1-1)a really interesting book about them.

Bats are wonderful. and snakes are endlessly fascinating. I will admit to a dislike for roaches, but that's a humancentric reaction -- they will be here long after we're gone.

[Rowan]

Of interest here is this notion that just because human beings have the ability to manufacture things (etc.) we are somehow superior (of greater value or importance). These abilities (factors/criteria) shouldn't be the sole basis for determining superiority... Just because subject A is proficient when it comes to Physics or science doesn't make him superior to subject B, who excels in writing, etc. and therefore just because a human can design a corrective lens doesn't make him superior to the wolf/horse/eagle who can't. Communication is another thing - many people claim human beings are superior due to our ability to communicate. Dolphins and whales engage in highly complex communication much like human beings http://www.eoearth.org/article/Whale_communication_and_culture (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Whale_communication_and_culture) as do wolves: http://www.wolfsource.org/?page_id=112 --- as do many other species. These are but two examples... :)

Every species on this planet is superior to another in some respect (as tjwriter pointed out). Again, it strikes me as arrogant to assume that human achievements and unique abilities make us superior to all...

The animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth. ~Henry Beston, The Outermost House, 1928

[clintl]

Glad to hear it, Rats are fascinating creatures, much like humans -- smart, adaptable, and survivors. It's said there as many rats in NYC as there are people. Here's (http://www.amazon.com/Rats-Observations-History-Unwanted-Inhabitants/dp/1582344779/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255799662&sr=1-1)a really interesting book about them.

Bats are wonderful. and snakes are endlessly fascinating. I will admit to a dislike for roaches, but that's a humancentric reaction -- they will be here long after we're gone.

Of course, one wonders what percentage of rats purchased at Petco are really purchased as pets.

[Ruv Draba]

That power is inarguable, and it just underscores the fact that we should custodianiate this planet.So the first alien species we meet with a better microwave should custodianate us?

And meanwhile, presumably those economies that can manufacture better tools should custodianate those economies which can't? Nope, no economic self-interest there, bucko.

[Don]

Superiority is a human concept. In fact, conceptualization is a human skill that no other species shares.

conceptualization: inventing or contriving an idea or explanation and formulating it mentally

I'd say that makes us pretty damned superior. Or you can go live in a cave where nobody's conceptualized central heat or supermarkets and pretend we're not superior. Either one's fine by me.

[Rowan]

Superiority is a human concept. In fact, conceptualization is a human skill that no other species shares.

conceptualization: inventing or contriving an idea or explanation and formulating it mentally

I'd say that makes us pretty damned superior. Or you can go live in a cave where nobody's conceptualized central heat or supermarkets and pretend we're not superior. Either one's fine by me.

What use does a dog/wolf/lion/etc. have for either - HVAC or supermarkets? Having - or needing - either doesn't make human beings superior.

As for animals and the ability to conceptualize:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000246033 (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000246033)

Finally, Keller and Schoenfeld broke from tradition by proposing that conceptual behavior might very well be evidenced by nonverbal humans, like infants, and even by nonhuman animals. Given our own special interest in the matter, it is appropriate here to repeat Keller and Schoenfeld's (1950) insightful critique of the concept of "concept:"


It is curious to note the resistance that may be shown to the notion that the term concept need not be limited to matters capable of being verbalized or found only in the behavior of human adults. We seem to have here a problem in our own behavior. We have formed a concept of conceptual behavior which is based upon such factors as the age of the subject, his ability to verbalize, and the fact that he is human.


http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1988-25604-001&CFID=2165411&CFTOKEN=85894528

[Don]

:ROFL: I'm done here.

[Rowan]

:ROFL: I'm done here.

Wow. What, so just because someone doesn't agree with your 'profound wisdom' that's somehow amusing or ludicrous?

That's interesting.

[regdog]

Let me think about this-compared to other animals
We can't see well in the dark
We can't breath underwater
We can't see well underwater
Our eyesight is average
Our hearing is mediocre
We can't fly
We have no natural protection from the elements
We can't swim fast or dive deep
We have no retractable claws
We don't run very fast
We can't jump very high or far

And worst of all we can't swing from a tree by our butts because we have no prehensile tail

Damn You Evolution-We are not superior to other animals.

[robeiae]

What use does a dog/wolf/lion/etc. have for either - HVAC or supermarkets?I would guess that any of these animals--that found themselves freezing to death in winter or that were poor hunters and were starving to death--would have some use for central heat or a supermarket.
Having - or needing - either doesn't make human beings superior.
In general, a think there's an unwillingness to acknowledge superiority--in a basic, pragmatic sense--here. Imo, humans can be rightly said to be superior to other animals, insofar as humans can--with intent and planning--control, dominate, and/or kill other animals. That's how one human culture ends up considering itself superior to another, at the end of the day. There's nothing moral or just about it.

Of course, I would whole-heartedly agree that this doesn't make humans "better" than other animals, more deserving of life, or anything of that sort. And I think it stupid to needlessly kill other animals, to hunt others to extinction, and to be cruel to them. I think we are better off--as a species--when we avoid these things and when we consider the consequences of our actions, with regard to the environment in general, before deciding to take a given action.

That said, man is a part of nature, as much as a cockroach, a dolphin, a tree, or a tapeworm. And the individual man will make choices for his/her individual benefit. The sum total of such choices might very change the "natural order." That can't be helped.

[Ruv Draba]

conceptualization is a human skill that no other species shares.The bower-bird decorates its nest with found objects chosen and arranged for aesthetic attraction. Octopuses do the same with the crevices and cracks in which they live. If they don't do this, they don't get the good chicksorz, so their competitive reproduction strategy is actually founded on producing artworks.

I'd suggest that any creature which has individually-expressed art, has concept. I'd also suggest that octopuses were probably creating art before humans were.

[Rowan]

I would guess that any of these animals--that found themselves freezing to death in winter or that were poor hunters and were starving to death--would have some use for central heat or a supermarket. Touche ;)

I would guess that any of these animals--that found themselves freezing to death in winter or that were poor hunters and were starving to death--would have some use for central heat or a supermarket. In general, a think there's an unwillingness to acknowledge superiority--in a basic, pragmatic sense--here.
...
Of course, I would whole-heartedly agree that this doesn't make humans "better" than other animals, more deserving of life, or anything of that sort. And I think it stupid to needlessly kill other animals, to hunt others to extinction, and to be cruel to them. I think we are better off--as a species--when we avoid these things and when we consider the consequences of our actions, with regard to the environment in general, before deciding to take a given action.

That said, man is a part of nature, as much as a cockroach, a dolphin, a tree, or a tapeworm. And the individual man will make choices for his/her individual benefit. The sum total of such choices might very change the "natural order." That can't be helped.


Hello, Robeiae :hi:
It's not a matter of an unwillingness on my part to acknowledge anything. I just so happen to disagree with the notion that human beings are superior (again, of greater value or more important). The criteria upon which you're basing this notion of superiority is flawed (IMHO) as I've stated previously. For the most part, I agree with the rest of your post as copied above (well stated, btw). But we have to draw the line on tapeworms (you seem to have an obsession there :))

[robeiae]

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.--Frank Herbert, Dune.

I guess, to prove the point once and for all, we could destroy all life on the planet--even the cockroaches--by actually destroying the planet. Don't anyone kid themselves: it could be done.

Really, aside from microscopic life forms, there isn't an animal that couldn't be wiped away. But like I said, there's nothing moral or just--let alone noble--about such a judgment.

[Rolling Thunder]

Let me think about this-compared to other animals
We can't see well in the dark
We can't breath underwater
We can't see well underwater
Our eyesight is average
Our hearing is mediocre
We can't fly
We have no natural protection from the elements
We can't swim fast or dive deep
We have no retractable claws
We don't run very fast
We can't jump very high or far

And worst of all we can't swing from a tree by our butts because we have no prehensile tail

Damn You Evolution-We are not superior to other animals.

I think the key point here is the fact of evolution. Intelligence is the yardstick to measure by if one considers:

--We can see better in the dark with a set of night-goggles than many animals.

--We can breathe (and see) under water by using scuba gear.

--We can improve eyesight using glasses or binoculars or telescopes.

--Etc.

Humans can copy any natural superiority of an animal and learn how to make use of it. It's what comes naturally, to our species.

[Ruv Draba]

Imo, humans can be rightly said to be superior to other animals, insofar as humans can--with intent and planning--control, dominate, and/or kill other animals.But that particular view is tied to the way that males compete for females in our species. We do it by using aggression to scare off other males, and by hunting to bring in the big meat. So the very question is driven by some very species-centric limbic-brain thinking which confuses the power to hunt and defend territory with some sort of moral status.

If you asked 'Is humanity an apex predator', I'd have to agree -- we are. 'Did we become an apex predator by hard work and conscious intent' -- no question about that. But I think there was a lot of luck involved too.

What I disagree with is the next step 'And therefore we is de winnahs of de life game'... My point being that different species aren't even playing the same game. If bacteria, insects or fungi could talk to us they'd laugh at such species-supremacist claims. :D

And I think that a young species crowing about being a tool-using apex predator is ludicrously smug. The game of life has been played over aeons; we're late to the table and we're still learning the rules. And we're deluded if we imagine that we invented a spanner before crabs developed claws, or a knife before thilocenes developed fangs, or dance before bees did, or weaving before birds did...

That said, man is a part of natureAbsolutely, and we have an enormous primate capacity to thieve. Nearly every human culture has a Promethean myth of some sort. So, crowing about 'inventing' spanners and electricity and art and cement and glass when those things have existed in nature before we were even a species is a little rich. :D

[Rowan]

Ever since Robeiae mentioned tapeworms the Google ads at the top of the page are: Info on Tapeworms and Worm and Parasite Treatment......

I never noticed these before! :)

[rugcat]

In general, a think there's an unwillingness to acknowledge superiority--in a basic, pragmatic sense--here. Imo, humans can be rightly said to be superior to other animals, insofar as humans can--with intent and planning--control, dominate, and/or kill other animals.It seems to me your definition of superior is simply top of the food chain, or apex predator. I don't think anyone can dispute that.

But by that definition, a lion is superior to a chimpanzee, a shark superior to a seal.

And being apex predator is an evolutionary advantage, for species survival -- to some extent. Horseshoe crabs have been around for hundreds of millions of years, where we're just getting started. The jury is still out on which species will prove the most successful at perpetuating itself.

And our vaunted intelligence, which makes it possible for us to dominate the earth, may in the end turn out to be an evolutionary dead end. It's quite possible the we're too smart for our own good, and that any species as aggressive as we, with the intelligence to unlock the power of the atom and God knows what else, may inevitably destroy itself along with much of the other life on the planet.

Except, possibly, the horseshoe crab. And assuredly the cockroach.

So I'd substitute "currently dominant" for "superior."

[CatSlave]

Considering the cruelty humans inflict on other humans -consciously- I say they are morally worse than animals.

What a loaded question though.
Are we talking about morality or mental attributes or physical superiority?

Ah, well. Taking everything into consideration, I vote for the animals.

[robeiae]

If you asked 'Is humanity an apex predator', I'd have to agree -- we are. 'Did we become an apex predator by hard work and conscious intent' -- no question about that. But I think there was a lot of luck involved too.
It seems to me your definition of superior is simply top of the food chain, or apex predator. I don't think anyone can dispute that.Okay.
What I disagree with is the next step 'And therefore we is de winnahs of de life game'... That's not my next step, at all. My point being that different species aren't even playing the same game. If bacteria, insects or fungi could talk to us they'd laugh at such species-supremacist claims. :D Don't be silly. Fungi are humourless...

But look, the "game" insofar as the very idea of "superiority" is a wholly human concept, is pretty much subject to our rules, no? But by that definition, a lion is superior to a chimpanzee, a shark superior to a seal.But my definition is not limited in the way you are now limiting it.

[Ruv Draba]

And being apex predator is an evolutionary advantage, for species survival -- to some extent.It's a niche role, and historically quite a vulnerable one, because balancing at the top of the food pyramid exposes a species to any cataclysms beneath. Wipe out the fodder that feeds gazelles and the cheetah dies out too.

Humans are a little different though. We might be the world's first omnivorous apex predator with a ranging diet. That gives us some resilience to shifts in the food chain. But we're still exposed. A cataclysm that wiped out our intestinal flora might well end us, because unlike ants (say) we can't live by sucking on sugar-cane.

So I'd substitute "currently dominant" for "superior."But only in that primate hunt-and-defend-yer-turf sense of dominant -- which only matters to our species because of how we compete and reproduce. There are plenty of more numerous and pervasive species on the planet which don't worry about turf and aren't into gathering or bringing down large game to feed the tribe. Those species aren't even playing the same game.

[Ruv Draba]

But look, the "game" insofar as the very idea of "superiority" is a wholly human concept, is pretty much subject to our rules, no?Only if we're dumb enough to think that nature gives a damn about our triumphalist species mythology. As the Ice Age and the Black Plague both attest, she doesn't. :)

[clintl]

Humans are a little different though. We might be the world's first omnivorous apex predator with a ranging diet.

As seen on Survivor.

[robeiae]

Only if we're dumb enough to think that nature gives a damn about our triumphalist species mythology. As the Ice Age and the Black Plague both attest, she doesn't. :)
Of course we're dumb enough.

You're looking at this as if "superiority" is subject to some kind of rigorous test, imo. But the concept is loose, and it's a product of the human condition. Within cultures--as I've noted--we know the ways in which superiority is determined.

The ability to destroy the other is the final test. So when the Romans say their civilization is superior to that of the Carthaginians, what is the standard? Ultimately, Rome wiped away the other, no matter the difficulties along the way, so I can't really question a Triumph for Scipio, complete with fanfare for Rome's inherent superiority.

Within the framework of this discussion, superiority is--imo--relatively easy to establish. All of the "well this animal can do this, and this animal can do that" and postulating about aliens is inconsequential. What matters is the human viewpoint. And this discussion is taking place among humans, as well (at least it was until RT posted). And you can't actually say what game other animals are playing, you can only posit a still-human-derived viewpoint that their views might be different, if they were capable of offering them.

I think--and I'll allow that I may be wrong--that the idea of acknowledging "superiority" makes some uncomfortable, as if that acknowledgement was empowering in some way. It's not. A comet may strike the earth next week and kill every person on the planet. We're not immune to anything and as Rugcat noted, we may very well wipe ourselves out, due in part to our arrogance. But in the meantime, the world is it is.

[Ruv Draba]

I guess, to prove the point once and for all, we could destroy all life on the planet--even the cockroaches--by actually destroying the planet. Don't anyone kid themselves: it could be done.You'd probably have to go out after Voyager then to destroy any viruses still on board... and whatever greeblies we've left on Mars... then anyone watching can say 'Hey! Just look at how freakin superior that homo sapiens was! They destroyed all life in the solar system thousands of years before their sun did!'

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.--Frank Herbert, Dune.Tell that to the guy who can't surf, but can trash his plank with a chainsaw. :D

[regdog]

I think the key point here is the fact of evolution. Intelligence is the yardstick to measure by if one considers:

--We can see better in the dark with a set of night-goggles than many animals.

--We can breathe (and see) under water by using scuba gear.

--We can improve eyesight using glasses or binoculars or telescopes.

--Etc.

Humans can copy any natural superiority of an animal and learn how to make use of it. It's what comes naturally, to our species.


Very true, but animals also have the ability to learn.

Killer whales learn how to catch seal pups in the tide line without beaching themselves. Not all Killer whales will do this. It is most often seen in Killers whales who live off Argentina and France. The whales practice the skill over and over until they get it right.

Gorillas and monkeys make and use tools to acquire food.

An octopus can see a crab in a sealed jar and understand it needs to open the jar to get the crab out. Without ever seeing how the jar is opened, the octopus figures it out, opens the jar and gets the crab.

Otters learn to use rocks as tools.

Elephants have shown the ability to know where ancestral waterholes are even if they have never been there before.

I don't think humans will ever really be able to gauge the intelligence of other species. What we perceive or assume to be animal instinct or natural behavior could very well be a learned skill or adaptation, generations old.

[robeiae]

Tell that to the guy who can't surf, but can trash his plank with a chainsaw. :D
Ah, but you've overreached: control over the plank is not the same as control over the ocean...

;)

[regdog]

Humans are a little different though. We might be the world's first omnivorous apex predator with a ranging diet. .

Brown and black bears are apex predators who are also omnivorous. They will eat everything from berries, moss, grasses and other plants to fish, mollusks, elk and even whale carcasses.

[Magdalen]

[snip]
The ability to destroy the other is the final test.

Within the framework of this discussion, superiority is--imo--relatively easy to establish. All of the "well this animal can do this, and this animal can do that" and postulating about aliens is inconsequential. What matters is the human viewpoint. And this discussion is taking place among humans, as well (at least it was until RT posted). And you can't actually say what game other animals are playing, you can only posit a still-human-derived viewpoint that their views might be different, if they were capable of offering them.

I think--and I'll allow that I may be wrong--that the idea of acknowledging "superiority" makes some uncomfortable, as if that acknowledgement was empowering in some way. It's not. A comet may strike the earth next week and kill every person on the planet. We're not immune to anything and as Rugcat noted, we may very well wipe ourselves out, due in part to our arrogance. But in the meantime, the world is it is.

Sheesh, if I'm gonna claim superiority (which I don't zen-buddy, cause of my penchant for the ying-yang concept of balance) the closest reason I could possibily postulate would be our acts of creation, NOT destruction! I don't see how being able to wreck everything makes us "superior".

[clintl]

The other problem with Rob's definition is that it means humans are superior to humans.

And I don't mean in the Romans vs. Carthaginians sense.

[Ruv Draba]

I think--and I'll allow that I may be wrong--that the idea of acknowledging "superiority" makes some uncomfortable, as if that acknowledgement was empowering in some way.As if it were an atavistic 19th century justification for empire, you mean?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/China_imperialism_cartoon.jpg/420px-China_imperialism_cartoon.jpg

[cray]

I think the key point here is the fact of evolution. Intelligence is the yardstick to measure by if one considers:

--We can see better in the dark with a set of night-goggles than many animals.

--We can breathe (and see) under water by using scuba gear.

--We can improve eyesight using glasses or binoculars or telescopes.

--Etc.

Humans can copy any natural superiority of an animal and learn how to make use of it. It's what comes naturally, to our species.

Very true, but animals also have the ability to learn.

Killer whales learn how to catch seal pups in the tide line without beaching themselves. Not all Killer whales will do this. It is most often seen in Killers whales who live off Argentina and France. The whales practice the skill over and over until they get it right.

Gorillas and monkeys make and use tools to acquire food.

An octopus can see a crab in a sealed jar and understand it needs to open the jar to get the crab out. Without ever seeing how the jar is opened, the octopus figures it out, opens the jar and gets the crab.

Otters learn to use rocks as tools.

Elephants have shown the ability to know where ancestral waterholes are even if they have never been there before.

I don't think humans will ever really be able to gauge the intelligence of other species. What we perceive or assume to be animal instinct or natural behavior could very well be a learned skill or adaptation, generations old.


nice post, rt. good lord that hurt.




reg, all true but none of them have built a car yet.

[Zoombie]

So the first alien species we meet with a better microwave should custodianate us?
.

If they want too, they can try.

We'll just have to steal their tools and beat them if they do. My suggestion? Weaponized anti-matter, just like what we served the Nutrino Birds with.

[Death Wizard]

The universe is filled with spectacular beauty and and amazing depth. Perhaps, human beings are more capable of seeing this than the other creatures that inhabit Earth.

[Ruv Draba]

The universe is filled with spectacular beauty and and amazing depth. Perhaps, human beings are more capable of seeing this than the other creatures that inhabit Earth.Except for smells. And sounds. And movement. And ultraviolet. And infrared. And the vibrations of a single thread. Cos dogs, cats, insects and spiders all know more about that stuff than humans.

Oh, and girls have a bigger range of colour-receptors than boys. And kids have a bigger hearing-range than adults. So I guess little girls are the superiorest and ought to custodianise humanity (if they haven't already). :D

[aadams73]

So I guess little girls are the superiorest and ought to custodianise humanity (if they haven't already). :D

That sounds fair to me. We should go with that plan. :D

[Death Wizard]

Except for smells. And sounds. And movement. And ultraviolet. And infrared. And the vibrations of a single thread. Cos dogs, cats, insects and spiders all know more about that stuff than humans.

Oh, and girls have a bigger range of colour-receptors than boys. And kids have a bigger hearing-range than adults. So I guess little girls are the superiorest and ought to custodianise humanity (if they haven't already). :D


There's seeing ... and then there's seeing. But I get your point, nonetheless.

[robeiae]

Sheesh, if I'm gonna claim superiority (which I don't zen-buddy, cause of my penchant for the ying-yang concept of balance) the closest reason I could possibily postulate would be our acts of creation, NOT destruction! I don't see how being able to wreck everything makes us "superior".
Well, when it comes to the cockroach, it's our ability to step on one and squash it that is the first indicator for most, no?

Again, the concept is a very loose one. And again, I don't think making that judgment involves morality, at all. It's not just, not noble, not fair.
The other problem with Rob's definition is that it means humans are superior to humans.
Humans are in competition with humans, all the time. There's not a problem here, there's just a nasty conclusion, one that I think isn't worth much at the end of the day.
As if it were an atavistic 19th century justification for empire, you mean?Sure. Because that's what it is. Even Zoombie's "custodianation" fits the rubric.

[Rolling Thunder]

Except for smells. And sounds. And movement. And ultraviolet. And infrared. And the vibrations of a single thread. Cos dogs, cats, insects and spiders all know more about that stuff than humans.

Oh, and girls have a bigger range of colour-receptors than boys. And kids have a bigger hearing-range than adults. So I guess little girls are the superiorest and ought to custodianise humanity (if they haven't already). :D

All of these traits were discovered by people studying other species, not the other way around. Animals don't technically --know-- those things listed; they simply react to stimulation of their environment.

I'm not saying animals aren't intelligent; they are, but to varying degrees beneath that of humans. When another species discovers how to leave the planet and return, then I'll give them equal status.

[Bird of Prey]

All of these traits were discovered by people studying other species, not the other way around. Animals don't technically --know-- those things listed; they simply react to stimulation of their environment.

I'm not saying animals aren't intelligent; they are, but to varying degrees beneath that of humans. When another species discovers how to leave the planet and return, then I'll give them equal status.

And when animals can exceed this kind of stupidity, perhaps I'd be willing to concede the point:

<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=article) -->3rd person dies in Ariz. sweat lodge ceremony case
By FELICIA FONSECA (AP) – 4 hours ago
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — An Arizona homicide investigation now includes three deaths after a woman died more than a week after participating in a sweat lodge ceremony that hospitalized nearly two dozen people.
Liz Neuman of Minnesota died Saturday at a Flagstaff hospital, Yavapai County sheriff's spokesman Dwight D'Evelyn said.
The 49-year-old suffered multiple organ damage during the Oct. 8 ceremony at a resort near Sedona, a resort town 115 miles north of Phoenix that draws many in the New Age spiritual movement.
Authorities were treating all three deaths as homicides, but no charges have been filed.
D'Evelyn did not provide a city of residence for Neuman, but public records showed an address in Prior Lake, about 25 miles southwest of Minneapolis.
Neuman was among more than 50 people crowded inside the sweat lodge run by self-help guru James Arthur Ray. An emergency call two hours after they entered the lodge reported two people not breathing. . . .
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4PHcSvMF8pPe_CpIRZejl7OD1vgD9BDCVRO0


Human beings as a whole are not superior to animals by any stretch of the imagination, albeit we have been blessed with a few very smart people during the course of history that have bestowed on the rest of us a number of advancements. Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to bet on percentages. And I don't know any species other than the great homo sapien that sows the seeds of its complete destruction. If that's "superior," than that definition defies all logic as we thought we understood it. . . .

[Ruv Draba]

I'm not saying animals aren't intelligent; they are, but to varying degrees beneath that of humans.Our species sample bias tends to favour intelligence to do with communication and playing with tools -- because those relate to our species' competitive strategy. But to be fair, an unbiased definition of intelligence has to work with the context of the species solving problems in its own domain, not solving problems in our domain.

In that respect, the depth to which many animals know their environment far exceeds the depth to which we know ours. For example, a dog can tell which individuals have been where, and how long ago (no great surprises there), but it can also diagnose many kinds of illness from the smell of your body and its excretions. It can tell when you're close to death. So in some basic diagnostic functions it does a better job than a university-trained GP.

We massively under-estimate how much intelligence is in a dog's scenting ability -- largely because we can't directly talk to dogs to find out. We can only find out through guessing and testing. It's obvious that dogs find scents fascinating and that they concentrate intensely on what they find.

But there's a lot more we under-estimate, just because of our speciesist biases.

There aren't too many humans that could find their way home unaided across a continent through unfamiliar terrain -- and do it inside months -- while feeding themselves, and avoiding local and possibly unfamiliar hazards.

The logistical task of crossing a continent requires balancing short-term and long-term needs -- else you die or get stuck. Just think how easy it is to get lost on unfamiliar roads in a single county. So there's more happening inside a dog's head than simply 'reacting to its environment'. Canines (the smarter ones) have a logistical management package as part of their nomadic pack-predator mental framework. Arguably, all the successful pack-predators must, else they'd starve the first time they ran out of game. And arguably, it's a lot better than that of many humans. Even though they can't do math.

Against that, I don't much count not leaving the planet (except they technically did, and before humans too :D). Because it's not yet clear to me that it's in any species' direct interest to do that. (Where is it we think we're going again? And when do we think we're getting there?)

[Rowan]

Our species sample bias tends to favour intelligence to do with communication and playing with tools -- because those relate to our species' competitive strategy. But to be fair, an unbiased definition of intelligence has to work with the context of the species solving problems in its own domain, not solving problems in our domain.
...........
But there's a lot more we under-estimate, just because of our speciesist biases.


:D

[Woof]

Humans are certainly not superior to animals. It is this illusion that has given arrogant humans justification to treat animals with cruelty and indifference. All life is sacred and equal. And the case can be made that animals are in fact, happier than humans because, unlike humans, they live their lives in perfect harmony with nature.

[Rolling Thunder]

All life is sacred and equal. And the case can be made that animals are in fact, happier than humans because, unlike humans, they live their lives in perfect harmony with nature.

I don't think the animals on the lower end of the food chain would agree with this.

[Williebee]

"All life is sacred and equal?"
"All life is sacred and edible?"

If you don't buy the second one, then the first one isn't true.

Just sayin.

[Woof]

I don't think the animals on the lower end of the food chain would agree with this.

No would they disagree. A sea urchin that is eaten by a snail could reincarnate as a snail and find himself feasting on a nice juicy sea urchin without a word of complaint.

[Rolling Thunder]

No would they disagree. A sea urchin that is eaten by a snail could reincarnate as a snail and find himself feasting on a nice juicy sea urchin without a word of complaint.

Again I have to disagree, because reincarnation is a human belief system and not a fact of nature.

[regdog]

reg, all true but none of them have built a car yet.

Animals can travel distances in one day by foot, wing and water that humans had to invent an alternative mode of transportation for. For humans many of their inventions were out of necessity, animals already had what they needed.

[cray]

Animals can travel distances in one day by foot, wing and water that humans had to invent an alternative mode of transportation for. For humans many of their inventions were out of necessity, animals already had what they needed.



this helps make the point.

[Bird of Prey]

"All life is sacred and equal?"
"All life is sacred and edible?"

If you don't buy the second one, then the first one isn't true.

Just sayin.

I disagree. One does not preclude the other. All life is sacred and it's also "edible," although there's a frog and few other critters that will happily make it your last bite. . . .

Human beings have been meals vis a vis man-eating lions, etc. and then of course, there's cannibalism, another demonstration of our superiority as a species. . . .

[Cyia]

Ask an owl in humans are superior and he'll stare thoughtfully.

Ask a hyena if humans are superior and he'll laugh at you.

Ask a gorilla if humans are superior and he'll probably hit you with poop.

[Rolling Thunder]

Ask an owl in humans are superior and he'll stare thoughtfully.

Ask a hyena if humans are superior and he'll laugh at you.

Ask a gorilla if humans are superior and he'll probably hit you with poop.

This is still simple humanization of animals from a human POV though. Ask any owl for the equation to learn the circumference of a circle; it will still likely stare at you.

[Magdalen]

As Ruv Draba and others have pointed out, the ranking of species is specious (i.e. apparently good or right though lacking real merit) and represents a mind-set rank with the stench of bias and prejudice. If one fails to see the implicit balance of design within the structure of the natural world and is willing to rank humans above animals, I would suspect such a creature is likewise bound by an endless requirement to create and sustain a system of hierarchy, requiring the designation of positions within the classification, which, by extension contributes to and aids in the repression of those individuals by the aforementioned elitist postulation.

[KTC]

Going on the basis of the 'simple poll' on its own...without reading the rest of the thread...I say that NO, humans are not superior. I base this on my belief that all living things are equal. We're definitely luckier in that we have been able to harness the world more capably than any other animals. But, NO, I do not think there is a level of importance/superiority that one animal has over another.

[Cyia]

This is still simple humanization of animals from a human POV though. Ask any owl for the equation to learn the circumference of a circle; it will still likely stare at you.

Just me bein' silly. ;)

[Ruv Draba]

Just me bein' silly. ;)There Shall Be No Silliness in This Thread.

http://th06.deviantart.net/fs11/150/i/2006/184/8/3/The_Fun_Guy_from_Yuggoth_by_DrewArt.jpg

(Who said fungi have no humour?)

[Rolling Thunder]

As Ruv Draba and others have pointed out, the ranking of species is specious (i.e. apparently good or right though lacking real merit) and represents a mind-set rank with the stench of bias and prejudice. If one fails to see the implicit balance of design within the structure of the natural world and is willing to rank humans above animals, I would suspect such a creature is likewise bound by an endless requirement to create and sustain a system of hierarchy, requiring the designation of positions within the classification, which, by extension contributes to and aids in the repression of those individuals by the aforementioned elitist postulation.

That seems more like a circular rant of personal dogma than a legitimate contribution to a discussion.

And quite an elitist one to boot, in my opinion. But you're welcome to it.

[Magdalen]

That seems more like a circular rant of personal dogma than a legitimate contribution to a discussion.

And quite an elitist one, to boot in my opinion. But you're welcome to it.

To put it more plainly then: if you're (collective you) going to rank humans over animals, why stop there? If you perceive a superiority of humans over animals, doesn't it follow that there must be an orderly progression within the human species itself, i.e. women above men, black above white and so on? If not, please explain.

[Ruv Draba]

Sure. Because that's what it is. Even Zoombie's "custodianation" fits the rubric.Exactly. When politics drive scientific or philosophical questions they contaminate the framing. The Descent of Man had nothing to do with cannibalising Africa, Asia or the Philippines for empire, but that's the first thing we did with it, even while we were debating its truth. Phrenology could have been a legitimate science (it wasn't), but evaluation of its legitimacy was clouded from the outset by elitist agendas with applications of why poor people were born to be criminal and why Africans were unable to contain their impulses.

We have a strong political interest in the answer to the question of species superiority. It's based on economic benefit, religious beliefs and so on... So as The Commitments would put it, 'we're fooked fer shtarters'.

As an aesthetic question -- provoking art, I think it's a good 'un. Especially if it lets us see things in new ways. It can launch a paean to spiders, or make a parodic case for an empire of geese, or trigger a diatribe that little girls should rule the world.... But as a philosophical or scientific question it doesn't fly. Even tighter framing (e.g. just rating power or intelligence or art or aesthetics or resilience) carries the same speciesist taint.

There are potentially just two useful outcomes from this discussion, I'd suggest: pretty flights of fancy (which I think ought to be encouraged if they're honest about what they are), and a rational recognition of our ignorance and species bias.

[Rolling Thunder]

To put it more plainly then: if you're (collective you) going to rank humans over animals, why stop there? If you perceive a superiority of humans over animals, doesn't it follow that there must be an orderly progression within the human species itself, i.e. men above women, white above black and so on? If not, please explain.

All species in their own right have a hierarchy. Ants have Queens/workers/soldiers: lion prides have alpha-males/females: etc. It --is-- the natural order of nature.

Humans are no different; history proves that. But the majority of people, being able to contemplate the difference of right and wrong, can strive to overcome prejudices, sexism and injustice. That's why we've created laws and governments as an avenue to better our societies. Animals are genetically predisposed towards survival and procreation. That's what nature gave them and that's what they appear to utilize; nothing more, nothing less.

[rugcat]

Animals are genetically predisposed towards survival and procreation. That's what nature gave them and that's what they appear to utilize; nothing more, nothing less.That's really open to question for many species.

And if you want to argue that, you could use the same arguments for humans. But it would start to sound like dorm room discussions about whether pure altruism actually exists.

But as others have pointed out, the crux here is that the speciests have taken the very things that humans are best at and arbitrarily assigned those qualities as the ideal, relegating other paradigms to an inferior status.

Once you set your basic assumptions, the logic is unassailable -- humans can do math, math is a sign of superiority, therefore, humans are superior.

[Ruv Draba]

All species in their own right have a hierarchy. Not every social species has a social hierarchy and in some species that do have social order, it's not always rigid. Coral for instance, clearly builds structure (fans and horns etc... that protect the individual polyps) but has no discernable social hierarchy. Anemones have a simple order (the ones in the middle of a colony breed, and the ones on the outside sting other anemones), but function is determined by where you happen to land as a nipper, not your physiology or ancestry; there's no hierarchy.

Ants and bees have a semi-rigid hierarchy based on what food you get as a larva -- if you're female and get the good stuff, you'll become a queen, else it's the life of a worker for you.

Humans are able to create various social orders, but there are some fundamentals we can't shake: all our stable social orders seem to require a deep, common sense of family and tribe. Those same considerations run through most of the primates too, but they're not present in all species. (Ask a crocodile mother which offspring are hers. She'll just probably shrug and bite ya face off. :D)

[Rolling Thunder]

That's really open to question for many species.

And if you want to argue that, you could use the same arguments for humans. But it would start to sound like dorm room discussions about whether pure altruism actually exists.

But as others have pointed out, the crux here is that the speciests have taken the very things that humans are best at and arbitrarily assigned those qualities as the ideal, relegating other paradigms to an inferior status.

Once you set your basic assumptions, the logic is unassailable -- humans can do math, math is a sign of superiority, therefore, humans are superior.

I don't believe pure altruism exists. To me it seems to be one of those concepts that equals perfectionism, which I view as a mental disorder. :)

But I do believe that math is a sign of superiority given to humans. Without math you couldn't have a discussion or construct language. Understanding math is a basic building block of intelligence.

Not every social species has a social hierarchy and in some species that do have social order, it's not always rigid. Coral for instance, clearly builds structure (fans and horns etc... that protect the individual polyps) but has no discernable social hierarchy. Anemones have a simple order (the ones in the middle of a colony breed, and the ones on the outside sting other anemones), but function is determined by where you happen to land as a nipper, not your physiology or ancestry; there's no hierarchy.

Ants and bees have a semi-rigid hierarchy based on what food you get as a larva -- if you're female and get the good stuff, you'll become a queen, else it's the life of a worker for you.

Humans are able to create various social orders, but there are some fundamentals we can't shake: all our stable social orders seem to require a deep, common sense of family and tribe. Those same considerations run through most of the primates too, but they're not present in all species. (Ask a crocodile mother which offspring are hers. She'll just probably shrug and bite ya face off. :D)

I can't argue with all of this since there is always a rebuttal for any case made in a discussion such as this; I've made my share. But I still have to stand by my basic perception as I see things: Nature is based on survival: kill or be killed: eat and be eaten: fight or flight.

And...can crocodiles shrug? :D

[Ruv Draba]

I do believe that math is a sign of superiority given to humans. Without math you couldn't have a discussion or construct language. Understanding math is a basic building block of intelligence.Maths are a huge advantage to humans, given their competitive strategy. We're all about communication and using tools. Without maths we're stuck as nomads. Farmers need granaries... granaries need maths.

Dogs though seem to do a brilliant job without math. (You try being a member of an underclass and navigating home across unfamiliar continent colour-blind and short-sighted wearing nothing but a fur-coat -- even if you have a copy of Russell-Whitehead in the pocket. :D) They're able to work out optimal pack- and litter-sizes without necessarily counting exatly how many there are. They're able to navigate without GPS and cartography... so whatever qualitative methods they're using to manage their existence, they're working dang fine.

Nature is based on survival: kill or be killed: eat and be eaten: fight or flight.Spoken like a true predator! :D

Nature contains those things but I'm darned if I know what it's based on. Most of the species in the world can't run and don't kill anything (there are far more plants and bacteria than other animals). There are far more herbivores than carnivores... and even things that fight and kill don't seem to want to survive -- they're far more interested in reproduction. Which would make me think that species survival was paramount, except that species mutate routinely.

My personal bottom line: humanity clawed its way into a niche it barely understands, appointed itself bus-driver of a planet full of fellow-travellers whose customs, needs and language it barely comprehends, and is pretending to steer the bus while having no idea of the road-rules, what's on the road, where it's going, and having no assurance it'll survive the next bend.

And...can crocodiles shrug? :DWell, they have the power to destroy those who can... Which by Robiae's "Dune"-argument, gives them control of the shruggzorz.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f129/goldenfox3/crocodile.jpg
"Controlling the Shrug"

[Williebee]

OK, I'll bite.

How is cannibalism a "demonstration of our superiority as a species"?

[Bartholomew]

A simple poll to address an issue raised in another thread.

Other.

The question is unclear. Are we the best animal in our niche? Sure, or else we'd be competing with some other animal, and we're not.

Are we the best animal at certain activities? Uh... no. Lions can hunt and kill better than the average, untrained human. Kangaroos are innately better at watching their children. Monkeys climb better. Etc, etc.

Superior how?

[Cyia]

If you can't answer that, obviously you are from the menu caste.

If you can't spot the bait in the pond, you're it?

:)

Watch it williebee... I'll sick my puppy on you.

[Magdalen]

My personal bottom line: humanity clawed its way into a niche it barely understands, appointed itself bus-driver of a planet full of fellow-travellers whose customs, needs and language it barely comprehends, and is pretending to steer the bus while having no idea of the road-rules, what's on the road, where it's going, and having no assurance it'll survive the next bend.

QFT.

[robeiae]

Well, they have the power to destroy those who can... Which by Robiae's "Dune"-argument, gives them control of the shruggzorz.
Really, you probably would have done better by leaving me out, here. ;)

They actually don't have that power, at all. A crocodile possess the capability to kill a human being, that is true. But you know what? So does a dog. And a rat. And so do many, many other kinds of animals. However, such capability is predicated on other factors. It does not exist for any of these animals, as a matter of course. I'm in my house. How, exactly, can crocodile x--currently in the Everglades--destroy me? Is it going to track my location, using my ISP info? Then maybe use a GPS device to find where I am in relation to it? Then hop a bus? Then knock on my door and fool me into opening it by saying "candy-gram"? Hell, even with the assistance of EVERY OTHER CROCODILE ON THE PLANET, it couldn't do it.

In contrast, I could hunt down and kill crocodile x. And I know I could.

These two factors--my actual power to do this thing and my knowledge of that power--make all the difference.

Now, look at this:As an aesthetic question -- provoking art, I think it's a good 'un. Especially if it lets us see things in new ways. It can launch a paean to spiders, or make a parodic case for an empire of geese, or trigger a diatribe that little girls should rule the world.... But as a philosophical or scientific question it doesn't fly. Even tighter framing (e.g. just rating power or intelligence or art or aesthetics or resilience) carries the same speciesist taint.

There are potentially just two useful outcomes from this discussion, I'd suggest: pretty flights of fancy (which I think ought to be encouraged if they're honest about what they are), and a rational recognition of our ignorance and species bias.You're placing yourself on the outside looking in, as if you can "see beyond" the species bias that you clearly are so opposed to. And in that light, you've opined that the animals are "playing a different game" and other such things.

But I'm on the outside of you, looking in. And what I'm saying is that you're fooling yourself. We're discussing this--we humans--among ourselves and the issue and our opinions are wholly products of our humanity. Your species bias in this regard is the same as everyone else's. You want to imagine that the initial question means something different--or is unanswerable--from the point of view of other species, but it doesn't. It is--imo--very straight-forward and very easy to answer. And--again--it's still loose and there's still nothing noble about the answer. It's very pedestrian.

[Bird of Prey]

OK, I'll bite.

How is cannibalism a "demonstration of our superiority as a species"?


I was being facetious.

[Rolling Thunder]

I was being facetious.

Is that French for face-eater?

Cranky/Williebee: Feel free to punt this post to TIO for derailing. :D

[Williebee]

I was being facetious.

Yeah, I just wanted to get the "I'll bite" pun in.

:)

ETA: I don't know, RT. It looks sufficiently derailed now.

[Bird of Prey]

Is that French for face-eater?



It is indeed French:

Main Entry: fa·ce·tious <INPUT class=au title="Listen to the pronunciation of facetious" onclick="return au('faceti02', 'facetious');" type=button itxtvisited="1">
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈsē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
Date: 1599

1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waggish) <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark> synonyms see witty (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witty)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facetious

I thought you'd like the "waggish" part.

[robeiae]

Is that French for face-eater?
No, that would be "polanskitier."

[Williebee]

No, that would be "polanskitier."

Oh, does that relate to "mousekateer"?

[Bird of Prey]

Yeah, I just wanted to get the "I'll bite" pun in.

:)




Ah. Well, as it's common knowledge that you bite, Williebee, I didn't quite see it as a pun . . . .

Consider your smiley borrowed. . . .

[Williebee]

Consider your smiley borrowed. . . .

Ok, but it better not come back with any new holes in it.

[Magdalen]

My conviction that the continuing influence of substantialist, materialist, mechanistic, reductionist thinking blocks a movement toward understanding comes from the influence of the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. He struggled against that kind of thinking and developed a process-relational vision that has much in common with Buddhist thought. He did not completely free himself from the thinking against which he struggled, and his followers have tended in part to fall back into it. I have long thought that if Buddhists would engage in this effort with us, we could achieve still more consistent and accurate formulations.

Whitehead did not himself develop a quantum theory. However, David Bohm and Basil Hiley have recently formulated a quantum theory congenial to his thought. It provides a very different way of thinking of the quantum world than the traditional models have offered. Bohm was deeply influenced by Indian thought of a sort that was more Buddhist than Hindu. This indicates the kinds of contributions that Buddhism has already made to science and how much remains to be done.

My study of Whitehead also suggests to me that Buddhists could learn from this engagement. Although profound, and I believe basically true, most Buddhist teaching is formulated in images that remain imprecise. They leave many important questions unanswered. When one struggles with the task of explaining experimental data in terms of these images, greater precision necessarily develops. It is my belief that this greater precision will enrich Buddhist understanding.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2218

In short, if we limit our perceptions to mechanistic views that animals are merely matter in motion, we exclude the possibility that we are fluid forms of energy, which cannot be considered superior or inferior to another. I think Albert said it best

E = MC2

[Ruv Draba]

Really, you probably would have done better by leaving me out, here. ;)Absolutely not! My irony is entirely pluralistic and inclusive. :2angel:

How, exactly, can crocodile x--currently in the Everglades--destroy me?Ah, but you keep thinking in terms of human-time. Boil-an-egg time. Sound-bite time.

Crocs are a very old, traditional species and they're cavalierly indifferent to the survival of other individuals in their species (minimal sense of tribe, see). They don't engage in dung-flinging between troops, as we primates do. But they are fond of man-flesh and here in Australia, crocs take one or two every few years. (Mainly Americans, for some reason. Maybe they find Japanese too fiddly.)

If one can't bite you personally then I expect it's happy to wait for the oceans to rise and bite your tribe-mates. And besides, if it comes to proving a point, all I've got to do is get you to Darwin for a book-signing say, sell you on the joys of Barramundi-fishing... let nature take its course. :hat: See, proving your supremacy over crocs is like trying to eliminate terrorists -- you have to win all the battles. The crocs only have to win one. :evil

These two factors--my actual power to do this thing and my [I]knowledge of that power--make all the difference.To you, because you've embraced a myth of technosupremacy. Which, when you think about it, has only had credibility for the last hundred years. Before the era that produced writers like Wells and Lovecraft, humanity had a very different view of the world. It was dangerous. It could bite. But tramping across the North Pole and shaking hands with a white-feller in the Congo made us (really just the Imperialistic developed world us) cocky. We can do anything, we've told ourselves.

http://www.tcnj.edu/~baldwin5/463px-Punch_Rhodes_Colossus.png

So the cataclysms of Wells and the horror of Lovecraft are really the dying gasp of the old myths... that we're not as smart and powerful as we think we are...

Edit: Piclinks removed for possible copyright sensitivites.

But the new myth is still myth. In geological terms, a century isn't even an eye-blink. Not even a twitch. Technosupremacy has yet to prove itself long-term viable, and the notion of destroying something to control it may prove to have all the credibility of a crash-test dummy thinking it knows how to drive, and all the wisdom of small boys burning ants with a magnifying-glass.

Now, look at this:You're placing yourself on the outside looking in, as if you can "see beyond" the species bias that you clearly are so opposed to.Well, it might look like a posture but the truth is I have no choice. My head's architected to reject tribe -- even when tribe actually likes me. Try living in a world where everything is data and you're constantly juggling multiple conflicting models and obsessively deconstructing everything you hear, and see how unwedded to tribe and species you get. :) According to psychologists, about 3% of humanity does this. It's our doOOom to be reviled for making people feel uncomfortable, and mocked for taking unpopular and unfamiliar positions. :D [There. Self-parody. Told ya. :tongue]

But I'm on the outside of you, looking in.Well, if you want to claim a broadly-based technosupremacist view I'll believe it, but to persuade me you'll need to construct a narrative outside the primates... show me for example, how a butcher-bird is doing much better than other predators in the same niche because it uses thornbushes to impale its prey. Then you can argue technology ftw, and eliminate any speciesist bias.

Being the perverse creature I am (see above), I always enjoy non-standard theories -- especially when they've got a bit of evidence behind them. One I'm delighting in is a theory of the domestication of dogs. The theory goes that dogs and humans domesticated each other through opportunism, and that humans only got civilised when dogs dedicated their hunting- and guarding-intelligence to a broad, trans-species pack, leaving humans to start thinking about communication and invention in a serious way.

It's just a theory, but I love the symmetry. Tool-using has demonstrated itself to be one of nature's more successful survival strategies. But the idea that it can hare off on its own without using some of the other great survival strategies just seems a little weak. Dinosaurs thought big was good too... and for a long while, it was. But not forever.

[Wayne K]

I guess I don't want to believe that humans are superior because if we are, it doesn't say a lot. The only thing we get better at is hate and killing. It would be nice if there was a fair share of good in the world to balance it all out, but there isn't.

[KTC]

I guess I don't want to believe that humans are superior because if we are, it doesn't say a lot. The only thing we get better at is hate and killing. It would be nice if there was a fair share of good in the world to balance it all out, but there isn't.

We get to sit on porcelain and wipe with fine soft paper too.

[Cella]

Just out of curiosity, how many of those who believe humans and animals are equal are vegitarians?


:)



I'm not trying to make a point or start an argument nor do I have any websites--which I realize may render me completely defenseless out here.

For those of you who were wondering, I have checked out PBS but got stuck on a cooking show--lamb, no less...

[Wayne K]

Is chicken a vegetable?

[Rolling Thunder]

I guess I don't want to believe that humans are superior because if we are, it doesn't say a lot. The only thing we get better at is hate and killing. It would be nice if there was a fair share of good in the world to balance it all out, but there isn't.

I meet good people everyday. If you look, they're there; but it's human nature to remember the worst in others.

[Wayne K]

I meet good people everyday. If you look, they're there; but it's human nature to remember the worst in others.
I think they're outnumbered, and that bad people have more of an impact on the world. Maybe because of the media.

[Cella]

I have always thought there needs to be a "good news only" station...

One that would report the birth of puppies and such.....

[KTC]

Is chicken a vegetable?

Depends. Has said chicken been incapacitated by a serious accident of some sort?

[KTC]

I think they're outnumbered, and that bad people have more of an impact on the world. Maybe because of the media.

Of course because of the media. But the media feeds what the people want. It's creepy that a train wreck is more fascinating than a waltz. Sad too. Dance me to the end of Love.

[Cella]

Of course because of the media.
Hence my suggestion :)

Heck, I'd watch it.

[Death Wizard]

I have always thought there needs to be a "good news only" station...

One that would report the birth of puppies and such.....

Fox?

[Cella]

Fox?

Yum ;)

[KTC]

Hence my suggestion :)

Heck, I'd watch it.

I'd watch it too. And I'm betting there's enough good news to fill the broadcast too. But it will never happen. Not enough people would tune in. What the hell would they have to bitch about if they only saw the good?

[robeiae]

Ah, but you keep thinking in terms of human-time. Boil-an-egg time. Sound-bite time.And you keep thinking you aren't limited in the same way, that you can think in some other "time" and that you're capturing some kind of truth in that regard.

You're not, imo. But it's a powerful hallucinogenic to think that you are.


See, proving your supremacy over crocs is like trying to eliminate terrorists -- you have to win all the battles. The crocs only have to win one. :evil
I get what you're saying. I really do. But I don't think you are getting me, at all.
To you, because you've embraced a myth of technosupremacy. Which, when you think about it, has only had credibility for the last hundred years. Before the era that produced writers like Wells and Lovecraft, humanity had a very different view of the world. It was dangerous. It could bite. But tramping across the North Pole and shaking hands with a white-feller in the Congo made us (really just the Imperialistic developed world us) cocky. We can do anything, we've told ourselves.Wrong. I'm not "embracing" any of what you've described, here.

Look, the implied condescension of your viewpoint is fine with me. I want to be upfront with that. Why? Because I'm being equally condescending. You believe--again--that you are seeing things in a way that's beyond the ken of those thinking under the more simplistic, species-biased view of everyman. And I believe that such a view is ultimately meaningless. It's sophistry. Why? Well, you're still human. You're still communicating with other humans. And you still can't actually speak to how any other species perceives ANY of this, except in limited ways, still conditioned by the limitations of your own human perceptions.

For better or worse, I think the meaning of "superior" in the OP is readily understood by anyone literate in the English language. And I think that--quite obviously--the question is about a human's perception of their relation to a given animal. And--again, quite obviously--the question is easy to answer, in that regard. Those who insist that it is not are merely playing their own game of superiority, imo. But it's easy to spot, because they're still human, try as they might to disguise themselves as something above that reality. And yes, my own game falls right in line, here. I KNOW that.



So the cataclysms of Wells and the horror of Lovecraft are really the dying gasp of the old myths... that we're not as smart and powerful as we think we are...
See, this exactly where you're not getting what I am saying, at all. You're wrongly seeing me as trumpeting this perceived superiority. I'm not. I've noted this, again and again.

Well, it might look like a posture but the truth is I have no choice. My head's architected to reject tribe -- even when tribe actually likes me. Try living in a world where everything is data and you're constantly juggling multiple conflicting models and obsessively deconstructing everything you hear, and see how unwedded to tribe and species you get. :) According to psychologists, about 3% of humanity does this. It's our doOOom to be reviled for making people feel uncomfortable, and mocked for taking unpopular and unfamiliar positions. :D
Lol! How do you know I'm not in that world, already? After all, if you read me carefully, you might easily suppose I'm disagreeing--in some sense--with EVERYONE in this thread. But again, this is an example of exactly what I was saying, re an assumption that your view is a product of being "outside" the common view...I'm still outside of you, like it or not. ;)

Make of it what you will.

[Gregg]

Superior mentally for sure. But not otherwise.
I was hunting with my pointing dog this weekend and she was far superior to me at finding birds.
Watching her was a thing of beauty. Far superior to me.
Animals rely much more on instinct than humans. We use reason and logic (or some of us do, I hope).

[Ruv Draba]

Just out of curiosity, how many of those who believe humans and animals are equal are vegitarians?I don't believe that they're equal. I believe they're incomparable. And I eat them, and am happy if they want to eat me when I'm dead. :)

[Cella]

So do you prefer roadkill or the ones that have died from natural causes?:)

I'm really not trying to sound like a smarta** , but I have a feeling that I'll come accross that way regardless..... :D

[Magdalen]

Just out of curiosity, how many of those who believe humans and animals are equal are vegitarians?


:)

I voted other, don't think equal has a role in this discussion, and I'm willing to supply my protein needs through a variety of sources.

[KTC]

So do you prefer roadkill or the ones that have died from natural causes?:)

I'm really not trying to sound like a smarta** , but I have a feeling that I'll come accross that way regardless..... :D

as long as you don't say irregardless, all is well. (-;

[Death Wizard]

Of course because of the media. But the media feeds what the people want. It's creepy that a train wreck is more fascinating than a waltz. Sad too. Dance me to the end of Love.

If it weren't for the media, we wouldn't have a free country.

Or am I taking this all way too seriously?

[C.bronco]

Yes. Except for eggplants.

[Cella]

Yes. Except for eggplants.

You're missing out! :) of course, they are kind of meaty....

[Ruv Draba]

Look, the implied condescension of your viewpoint is fine with me. I want to be upfront with that. Why? Because I'm being equally condescending.I'd say we're ramping each other up... and I'm grinning every time you post, because you argue very well. :) But if I'm being irritating I'll try harder not to be, because I don't want to offend anyone.

You believe--again--that you are seeing things in a way that's beyond the ken of those thinking under the more simplistic, species-biased view of everyman.I think it's a view some other posters share. It's just not the dominant view. Historically there is a dominant view built into our myths... farmers and hunters are bound to adopt a justification for their role. But that's not the only view we can take.

And I believe that such a view is ultimately meaningless. It's sophistry. Why? Well, you're still human. You're still communicating with other humans. And you still can't actually speak to how any other species perceives ANY of this, except in limited ways, still conditioned by the limitations of your own human perceptions.We can do a bit better than that. We can't know what a 'thought' is in an animal (do we know what it is in a human?), but we can do behavioural psychology on animals just as we do on people. It's becoming an area of serious study and it's showing us a lot we didn't know. And each time we find out something, it makes us ratchet back what we think is special about ourselves.

Which is not to say we're not special. In the history of the planet we're freaks among some very freakish species. But I don't think 'freak' stretches to 'superior'.

For better or worse, I think the meaning of "superior" in the OP is readily understood by anyone literate in the English language.Not to me... Morally superior? Technologically superior? More efficient? More resilient? More adaptable? Has the right to dominate? More worthy of worship and admiration? Etc... All of these seem fraught. The whole question does -- and not just cos I want to be contrarian. It just... does.

I think that--quite obviously--the question is about a human's perception of their relation to a given animal. And--again, quite obviously--the question is easy to answer, in that regard.Not according to the polls. The not-yessers are almost 50% -- way too high to be attributable to just antisocial behaviour. :)

Those who insist that it is not are merely playing their own game of superiority, imo.So if we answer the question or comment on it at all, we think we're superior? That's almost circular, Rob.

You're wrongly seeing me as trumpeting this perceived superiority. I'm not. I've noted this, again and again.Not trumpeting, and maybe I was inadvertantly taking some of your arguments out of context or missing a subtle point. If so, sorry.

[KTC]

I'm waiting for a pissed off cheetah to register here at AW and vote No. Once that happens, you know others will follow. The eager elephant, the zigzagging zebra, the orating orangutan, the dingy dog, the lingering lion. You get the picture. Once you open a poll like this, it's just a matter of time before you hear from the other side. Mark my words.

[Darzian]

Most species have evolved/adapted in ways that make them superior to other species in the context of said adaptations.

Humans have larger brains and so are 'superior' in the intelligence department (this is a generalization).

Eagles have keener eyesight (assumption) and so they are 'superior' predators.

Humans may be able to design weapons to kill prey but there we are largely using our intelligence.

So, IMO, it is quite impossible to conduct such a poll with such a simple question and such a limited number of answers. :)

[Darzian]

I'm waiting for a pissed off cheetah to register here at AW and vote No. Once that happens, you know others will follow. The eager elephant, the zigzagging zebra, the orating orangutan, the dingy dog, the lingering lion. You get the picture. Once you open a poll like this, it's just a matter of time before you hear from the other side. Mark my words.

I see sock puppets sneaking in..... :D

Besides, a tiger's already here.

[Wayne K]

Absolute proof that animals are superior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII

[Wayne K]

Smart as a whip.

[KTC]

Absolute proof that animals are superior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII

OH MY GOD! That's real!?!?! That chick is dumber than a rock. That is so insulting the rock. U.S. Americans, eh?! Wow. Just wow. What a waste of skin.

[Cyia]

I'm waiting for a pissed off cheetah to register here at AW and vote No. Once that happens, you know others will follow. The eager elephant, the zigzagging zebra, the orating orangutan, the dingy dog, the lingering lion. You get the picture. Once you open a poll like this, it's just a matter of time before you hear from the other side. Mark my words.


Does my puppy's opinion count for nothing? :cry::cry::cry:

[KTC]

Does my puppy's opinion count for nothing? :cry::cry::cry:

I'd listen intently to your puppy.

[Cella]

Does my puppy's opinion count for nothing? :cry::cry::cry:

now now, that's jumping the gun......we'll get to when dogs can have human rights soon enough, I'm sure....hang in there :D

I've got two dogs who have some comments to share, too...

[KTC]

now now, that's jumping the gun......we'll get to when dogs can have human rights soon enough, I'm sure....hang in there :D

I've got two dogs who have some comments to share, too...

My dog is disgruntled every time we go to the grocery store without her. I'm sure she'll be creating an uprising very soon. I'd rise up with her...for sure.

[Darzian]

Absolute proof that animals are superior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII

:Jaw:

English has to be her 5th language.

[KTC]

:Jaw:

English has to be her 5th language.

Either that or her trainers only taught her so many words. They should have asked her to roll over or play dead.

[Cyia]

My dog is disgruntled every time we go to the grocery store without her. I'm sure she'll be creating an uprising very soon. I'd rise up with her...for sure.

Mine couldn't care less about the grocery store, but she rides shotgun to the order window at any place where she can score a chicken strip... and tries to order at the speaker because she's figured out that's what gets her the chicken strip.

[KTC]

Mine couldn't care less about the grocery store, but she rides shotgun to the order window at any place where she can score a chicken strip... and tries to order at the speaker because she's figured out that's what gets her the chicken strip.

lol. That's fantastic. Mine puts her head out at the Timmy's window for her timbit. I'm insanely jealous, though, because mine has never once tried to talk into the speaker.

[Darzian]

If that person had won the competition..............I can't even conceive of a response.

*dies*

[Zoombie]

I find it odd that a single human is the paint we brush the whole race with...

Like, what if I said that Carl Sagan is proof that humans are better than animals? I mean, he was eloquent, far seeing, an honestly good man who worked to better our understanding of space, ourselves, and so on.

Or Einstine?

Or Stephen Hawking?

Or Ray Kurzweil?

Or Norman Borloug?

Or...

[Darzian]

I'm not speaking for Wayne, but I see it as a jest in good humor. Nothing more. :)

[Zoombie]

I know its just a joke, but its still bugging me!

Why is it that a single negative thing can be used to broadbrush anything, but it doesn't work in the reverse?

[Wayne K]

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein

[Zoombie]

Its also seeming other human things are infinite. Ingenuity, generosity, striving to make the world a better place.

If it was only stupidity, then how would the world continue to improve?

[Darzian]

I know its just a joke, but its still bugging me!

Why is it that a single negative thing can be used to broadbrush anything, but it doesn't work in the reverse?

I think it's partly because these negative things tend to happen with popular people/idols.

If Obama did something stupid, it may stimulate people around the globe to classify Americans as stupid. But if Obama did something really good, then it likely won't stimulate the people to do the same.

The funny part is that the former example is foolish while the second one is valid.

An individual's thoughts/actions/opinions obviously cannot be used to paint the entire population.

In answer to Zoombie's question, I think it's largely the sensational nature of negative traits. Humans are truly not the best beings.

[Wayne K]

I've seen it argued that people should bleed to death in front of an emergency room because they have no money. That people should starve to death because they're disabled. I've watched them kill each other in masses because their invisible friend in the sky is real and the other guy;s is not. Go to an animal shelter and see the abuses to defenseless creatures. 1/5 of the people in this country can't find it on a map. We're destroying our food, water and air at a rate that will kill future generations for money.

Excuse me for not having blind faith that it will all get better, because consistently it gets worse. If these things don't prove we're stupid, they prove we're hateful or don't care.

[Cyia]

I know its just a joke, but its still bugging me!

Why is it that a single negative thing can be used to broadbrush anything, but it doesn't work in the reverse?

People are taught by experience and example that the good is few and far between. When something really good happens, it's so rare to most people's thinking that there's no way it could be the norm. When something bad happens, it reinforces the assumptions they already hold about the human race and is much easier to believe as a shared trait.

[Cella]

oh, no doubt it's getting worse, wayne....but animals aren't going to be the ones making it better. We're the only hope and fraknly, it's not looking too good.

[AMCrenshaw]

oh, no doubt it's getting worse, wayne....but animals aren't going to be the ones making it better. We're the only hope and fraknly, it's not looking too good.

and other animals aren't the ones who messed it up, either.

[Zoombie]

Yeah, what a grim country we live in...rising life expectancy, new medical cures, more environmentally friendly technology that focus on sustainability, more equality for women and minorities, a massive world wide communication system that allows every one with even rudimentary telecommunication technology to talk with and share ideas with everyone else who has the same or better rudimentary telecommunication technologies...

We keep getting told that this world is shit, that the future is going to suck, that our fellow humans are horrible stupid morons.

I

Don't

Fucking

Buy it. I'm sick of being told that my fellow men and women are pathetic and stupid and slow and uncreative. I mean, how many people, every day, act nicely to one another? More than we could possibly count! But who do we REMEMBER!? Huh? Who do we really think about all the time?

The assholes. The jerks. The idiots. They stick in our minds, are the focus of our sensationalist media, and generally soak up the spotlight.

I refuse to let this species get written off by a minority.

[aadams73]

I refuse to let this species get written off by a minority.

What make you think they're a minority?

[Zoombie]

Personal experience and research.

But then again, confirmation bias. I look for good in people, I find good people. But then again again, I smile at people, I am polite to people, I treat them like people. But then again again again, the reverse is true...who wants to be nice to someone who thinks they're most likely going to be a douche?

[Ruv Draba]

I don't think that there's much harm that humans do to one another that other animals don't also do. Theft, rape, needless slaughter, property destruction, infanticide, deception, betrayal, bullying, xenophobia, wars and genocide are all known in other species. Humans didn't invent any of them. We are especially good at systematising those things though, and it does beg the question why, if we're so proud of our problem-solving, we are poor at solving our systemic bad behaviour.

It seems to me that if we want to improve our behaviour we need to understand better what motivates it. Not to support any mythical superiority over animals, but to try to better our own condition.

[Bird of Prey]

Personal experience and research.

But then again, confirmation bias. I look for good in people, I find good people. But then again again, I smile at people, I am polite to people, I treat them like people. But then again again again, the reverse is true...who wants to be nice to someone who thinks they're most likely going to be a douche?



So many of our problems are driven by raw ego, the need to be "better" than somebody else or in the case of this thread, animals. But a lot of our problems like war wouldn't exist if we were happy to live sans our ego-driven competition. So many seem to want more than somebody else even if they don't need it. And the more they have the better, even if it means others starve. Is that a demonstration of intelligence in a species?? No.

Now the OP didn't define what he meant by "superior," but I took it to mean "worth more," because that seemed to be what he was implying when he asked if I would accept my drowning in lieu of a gorilla that was saved.

[KTC]

So many of our problems are driven by raw ego, the need to be "better" than somebody else or in the case of this thread, animals. But a lot of our problems like war wouldn't exist if we were happy to live sans our ego-driven competition. So many seem to want more than somebody else even if they don't need it. And the more they have the better, even if it means others starve. Is that a demonstration of intelligence in a species?? No.

Now the OP didn't define what he meant by "superior," but I took it to mean "worth more," because that seemed to be what he was implying when he asked if I would accept my drowning in lieu of a gorilla that was saved.

I took the OP's question to mean the same thing that you took it for. And I don't see any species to be more valuable than any other species. We all share the same planet. Because we are intellectually capable, does not make us more worthy of being considered the most important or most superior. We are all equal.

[Woof]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

---George Orwell, Animal Farm


Yes, we all are equal. The only ones who don't see it that way, do so out of a need to dominate and to control. Fascists over libertarians. Men over women. Masters over slaves. White over black. Rich over poor. Humans over animals. And as for the last item on the list, those who claim that humans are superior to animals should at least be honest about why they think that is so--instead of advancing some bogus argument about the hierarchical order of things. The simple reason for the belief that humans are superior to animals is for one reason and one reason only--so that humans can control and dominate the animals, just like humans have attempted to control and dominate everything else in nature. And to our great collective misfortune, we've seen the effects.

[robeiae]

I think it's a view some other posters share. It's just not the dominant view.Yes, others no doubt share it. But it's a self-serving, ego-striking sort of view, imo.
We can do a bit better than that. We can't know what a 'thought' is in an animal (do we know what it is in a human?), but we can do behavioural psychology on animals just as we do on people. It's becoming an area of serious study and it's showing us a lot we didn't know. And each time we find out something, it makes us ratchet back what we think is special about ourselves.What you can't do is stop being human, stop having a human viewpoint. Again, you're fooling yourself if you think you can.

Which is not to say we're not special. In the history of the planet we're freaks among some very freakish species. But I don't think 'freak' stretches to 'superior'.
See, you're still playing the role of the scientist, supposedly detached from the whole affair. But you're not. You can't be.

Not to me... Morally superior? Technologically superior? More efficient? More resilient? More adaptable? Has the right to dominate? More worthy of worship and admiration? Etc... All of these seem fraught. The whole question does -- and not just cos I want to be contrarian. It just... does.
People rank everything. People have preferences and they can articulate those preferences. That's a part of the human condition. If I wanted to play the "talk like an animal" game, I guess I'd note that a tiger likely has a preference for some meats over others. So, for the tiger, some meats are superior. I can tell you that Kobe beef is far superior to Black Angus...

Not according to the polls. The not-yessers are almost 50% -- way too high to be attributable to just antisocial behaviour. :)
Think about what I'm saying here, again. Please. You say you're smiling with every post...

So if we answer the question or comment on it at all, we think we're superior? That's almost circular, Rob.
Well, no. Because the object changes.
Not trumpeting, and maybe I was inadvertantly taking some of your arguments out of context or missing a subtle point. If so, sorry.Well see, part of the viewpoint you and others are giving involves offering "zingers," mocking the fools that actually think they're superior...

[Don]

Man is the only creature that adapts his environment to suit himself. No other animal has the mental facilities or mechanical skills to do so, or to remember that it has done so, or make records of the adaptations, or to discuss that activity and the philosophy behind it. I think that's proof enough, personally.

[Bird of Prey]

Man is the only creature that adapts his environment to suit himself.

In no time flat, the first thing that popped into my head was a beaver: stream to pond. Builds huts. There are all kinds of other examples, particularly in the insect world.

[Don]

In no time flat, the first thing that popped into my head was a beaver: stream to pond. Builds huts. There are all kinds of other examples, particularly in the insect world.
Instinct. When they build a well and pumping station because the river's running slow, then you'll have a case.

[Diana Hignutt]

Who's superior: Dick Cheney or the Geiko Lizard?

One's a cold-blooded reptile and the other is the Geiko Lizard.

In seriousness, one would think that to humans, humans would be superior, and frankly, should be consedered superior. Beyond that, the question is meaningless.

[Bird of Prey]

Instinct. When they build a well and pumping station because the river's running slow, then you'll have a case.

Or genetic memory, and we don't know what "instinct" is; that's simplistic. We're finding out there's a lot more to the creatures around us. Btw, you are a product of genetic memory and a degree of "instinct." And I'm willing to bet you don't know how to build a pumping station on your own. YOU are dependent on what your predecessors learned and the acts of those around you which are no different than the socializing of many animals or their learned fears or adjusted behaviors to suit their environment.

[Diana Hignutt]

Or genetic memory, and we don't know what "instinct" is; that's simplistic. We're finding out there's a lot more to the creatures around us. Btw, you are a product of genetic memory and a degree of "instinct." And I'm willing to bet you don't know how to build a pumping station on your own. YOU are dependent on what your predecessors learned and the acts of those around you which are no different than the socializing of many animals or their learned fears or adjusted behaviors to suit their environment.

And, not that I agree with BoP on the superiority issue, but I believe that most manufactured structures on the planet are built by termites and ants.

[Don]

Or genetic memory, and we don't know what "instinct" is; that's simplistic. We're finding out there's a lot more to the creatures around us. Btw, you are a product of genetic memory and a degree of "instinct." And I'm willing to bet you don't know how to build a pumping station on your own. YOU are dependent on what your predecessors learned and the acts of those around you which are no different than the socializing of many animals or their learned fears or adjusted behaviors to suit their environment.
Instinct didn't create modern society. Genetic memory didn't create modern society. Thought did that. Reason did that. Knowledge accumulated over centuries, passed down as the written word did that. The ability to learn from the efforts of others, reconceptualize the situation, and attempt new solutions did that.

I can't build a pumping station on my own; nobody can. I can't even make a pencil on my own, and the lesson in I, Pencil (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/i-pencil/) is one that every single person of a modern society should understand in their bones. The essay itself answers the question superlatively in my mind.
My family tree begins with what in fact is a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and trucks and rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink!

[Diana Hignutt]

I can't build a pumping station on my own; nobody can. .

I probably could. Just sayin.

[AMCrenshaw]

Yeah, what a grim country we live in...rising life expectancy, new medical cures, more environmentally friendly technology that focus on sustainability, more equality for women and minorities, a massive world wide communication system that allows every one with even rudimentary telecommunication technology to talk with and share ideas with everyone else who has the same or better rudimentary telecommunication technologies...

We keep getting told that this world is shit, that the future is going to suck, that our fellow humans are horrible stupid morons.

I

Don't

Fucking

Buy it. I'm sick of being told that my fellow men and women are pathetic and stupid and slow and uncreative. I mean, how many people, every day, act nicely to one another? More than we could possibly count! But who do we REMEMBER!? Huh? Who do we really think about all the time?

The assholes. The jerks. The idiots. They stick in our minds, are the focus of our sensationalist media, and generally soak up the spotlight.

I refuse to let this species get written off by a minority.

I didn't read anyone's claim that humans were inferior to animals, and if I did I certainly didn't take it seriously. Did you read such a claim?

Humankind is its own curse and its own gift, always has been.

[Bird of Prey]

Who's superior: Dick Cheney or the Geiko Lizard?

One's a cold-blooded reptile and the other is the Geiko Lizard.

In seriousness, one would think that to humans, humans would be superior, and frankly, should be consedered superior. Beyond that, the question is meaningless.


Lol!! At first glance, I thought you were comparing Dick Cheney to Gordon Gecko, you know, Wall Street. Boy, that'd be a toss up.

Anyway, you are right in the sense that some humans need to consider themselves superior because they are - well - human, and thus rooting for their own team. But I just think it's nothing more than a value judgment predicated not on logic but a need to feel "better."

[Don]

I probably could. Just sayin.
We'll see what you have to say after I, Pencil. :D

[Diana Hignutt]

We'll see what you have to say after I, Pencil. :D

Okay, if I had access to the ore and a foundry, along with the machine shop I happen to have, I could make a pump and the necessary piping. If I had access to however-the-f-they-make-wire shop, I could make a motor and enough electrical components to make a pumping station. Yeah, I could. I build pumping stations sometimes.

But, all the stuff I don't have, yeah, I get your point.

[Don]

Okay, if I had access to the ore and a foundry, along with the machine shop I happen to have, I could make a pump and the necessary piping. If I had access to however-the-f-they-make-wire shop, I could make a motor and enough electrical components to make a pumping station. Yeah, I could. I build pumping stations sometimes.

But, all the stuff I don't have, yeah, I get your point.
Well, you have to have access to all that stuff -- or to a marketplace. With a marketplace, I can buy plans, all the parts -- and even the expertise and labor to assemble it. So I could make a pumping station too.

[Alpha Echo]

My initial response was yes! Absolutely! I even thought, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised since it doesn't appear (and I could be wrong) that many Christians frequent the P&CE boards, but anyway, no one mentioned what it says in the Bible.

IF you believe the Bible and how it says God made us - and I'm a Christian and though I believe God made us, I'm just not sure how - then God directly put man in charge of all the plants and animals on this earth. He made us to be superior.

However, there are a lot of interesting points on this thread. I still think that yes, we are superior to other animals, but I do find it fascinating how the animal kingdom works - several others have mentioned eye sight, hearing, and a whole list of other things that animals have that we as humans do not. It's incredible, really. But I don't think it means that we are necessarily not superior. It means that each animal was given a gift or gifts that enable it to survive. Humans included.

[Diana Hignutt]

Well, you have to have access to all that stuff -- or to a marketplace. With a marketplace, I can buy plans, all the parts -- and even the expertise and labor to assemble it. So I could make a pumping station too.

Hey, I'll give you a good price on one. Really!!!

[William Haskins]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/10/chimpanzee_farewell/dorothy.jpeg

Cameroon—At the Sanaga-Yong Chimpanzee Rescue Center,
more than a dozen residents form a gallery of grief, looking on
as Dorothy—a beloved female felled in her late 40s by heart
failure—is borne to her burial.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009

[Williebee]

Worth noting, maybe, that "superior" =/= "independent from" ??

[cray]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/10/chimpanzee_farewell/dorothy.jpeg

Cameroon—At the Sanaga-Yong Chimpanzee Rescue Center,
more than a dozen residents form a gallery of grief, looking on
as Dorothy—a beloved female felled in her late 40s by heart
failure—is borne to her burial.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009




who's going to bury dorthy?

[robeiae]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/10/chimpanzee_farewell/dorothy.jpeg

Cameroon—At the Sanaga-Yong Chimpanzee Rescue Center,
more than a dozen residents form a gallery of grief, looking on
as Dorothy—a beloved female felled in her late 40s by heart
failure—is borne to her burial.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009
Are they grieving, or worrying that her body will be carved up and used for research? Or maybe she still owed some of them money...

[Rowan]

Look, the implied condescension of your viewpoint is fine with me. I want to be upfront with that. Why? Because I'm being equally condescending.

For better or worse, I think the meaning of "superior" in the OP is readily understood by anyone literate in the English language. And I think that--quite obviously--the question is about a human's perception of their relation to a given animal. And--again, quite obviously--the question is easy to answer, in that regard. Those who insist that it is not are merely playing their own game of superiority, imo. But it's easy to spot, because they're still human, try as they might to disguise themselves as something above that reality. And yes, my own game falls right in line, here. I KNOW that.



Rob -I'm not getting any of that from Ruv's posts. As usual, he's witty and uses quirky reference points but I'm just not getting any arrogance whatsoever. In fact, his responses appear to be quite lighthearted, etc. (IMHO) But I understand that it's all about perceptions which brings me to another point...

It's apparent that not everyone perceived the question in the manner in which you did... does that mean we "don't readily understand the English language"? No (and I find the implication somewhat insulting to be perfectly honest). As some have stated, the question as is lacks qualifiers (for them), ie., superior how? (etc.) Ten people can read the same sentence and all come away with a different "take" or meaning. Again, it's all about perceptions. Many factors influence how we - as individuals - perceive the world. While my viewpoint may differ from yours it doesn't make me wrong, just coming from a different place. :) That's the beauty of a board like this...the wide variety of opinions any given question or statement will generate.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Ruv Draba http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4162504#post4162504)
I think it's a view some other posters share. It's just not the dominant view.




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
By [B]Robeiae: Yes, others no doubt share it. But it's a self-serving, ego-striking sort of view, imo.


How so?

By Robeiae:
Well see, part of the viewpoint you and others are giving involves offering "zingers," mocking the fools that actually think they're superior...

I haven't seen this but I'll go back and re-read the thread very carefully. I know that I haven't launched any "zingers" or mocked anyone's opinion. If you feel that I have, please accept my apology for any misunderstanding involved. If anything, I appear to amuse certain posters.

Cheers! ;)

[Jcomp]

I mean, how many people, every day, act nicely to one another? More than we could possibly count! But who do we REMEMBER!? Huh? Who do we really think about all the time?

The assholes. The jerks. The idiots. They stick in our minds, are the focus of our sensationalist media, and generally soak up the spotlight.

I refuse to let this species get written off by a minority.

Well, the problem is, the assholes, jerks and idiots stick in our minds because a harmful action tends to have a greater impact than a helpful action. Human beings are inherently capable of more "harm" than good. Probably the same could be said for any other animal, but since we've attained the greatest level of sentience we actually have the concept of "responsibility" to place on ourselves for our actions. But nice people don't make the news because the impact is usually not as profound, and any good deed can be undone while certain bad deeds can't be. I can help an old lady across the street and it's all good, but then a drunk driver can cream us both while we're halfway to the other side and my effort was for naught. 'Tis what it is.

[Rowan]

Probably the same could be said for any other animal, but since we've attained the greatest level of sentience we actually have the concept of "responsibility" to place on ourselves for our actions.

It's all about intent.........

[Jcomp]

It's all about intent.........

To an extent, but when you're looking at end results intent only means so much. You can unintentionally do something harmful and the victim can be just as harmed. Which is why I believe, again, that we're inherently more capable of harm than good.

[Rowan]

To an extent, but when you're looking at end results intent only means so much. You can unintentionally do something harmful and the victim can be just as harmed. Which is why I believe, again, that we're inherently more capable of harm than good.

[Bolding is mine]
True, I was speaking in general terms. :) I couldn't agree more with your last...

[Williebee]

To an extent, but when you're looking at end results intent only means so much. You can unintentionally do something harmful and the victim can be just as harmed. Which is why I believe, again, that we're inherently more capable of harm than good.


I don't know, J. You could say that "You can unintentionally do something good and the victim be just has helped."

Hey, you may have unintentionally saved a life with your Samuel L. Jackson video.

Yeah, got the free plug in. :)

[Jcomp]

I don't know, J. You could say that "You can unintentionally do something good and the victim be just has helped."

Hey, you may have unintentionally saved a life with your Samuel L. Jackson video.

Yeah, got the free plug in. :)

Ha! Danke.

And for the record, I'm still in the pro-human camp. I hate us sometimes, but I'm still on the team, and I still think human-level sentience and self-awareness is the pinnacle achievement of the known universe. And God a'mighty that last sentence reads like bad exposition in a lousy sci-fi story...

[Williebee]

:) I haven't voted yet (I think). But maybe the key to how we vote is in that bad exposition: "the known universe", or maybe just based on what we know/believe of our universe?

[Jcomp]

:) I haven't voted yet (I think). But maybe the key to how we vote is in that bad exposition: "the known universe", or maybe just based on what we know/believe of our universe?

True. Indeed, though I voted, my belief is quite complicated (and part of why I voted Yes was because as a human I'm capable of forming complicated beliefs and at least begin examining the resplendent mysteries of the universe). Because I think we are the pinnacle achievement of the "known" universe, but I also believe that there is almost certainly life elsewhere in the universe. How intelligent is that life though? What stage of development are they at if they are comparably sentient and builders of society and civilization? Are they still in their stone age? Did they destroy themselves in a technological singularity? Did they advance to a mega-intelligent state so that they don't respond to our attempts to communicate because we're like insects to them?

Who knows? But given what we do "know" about life on Earth and the universe, I have to say we're the superior species, based in part on the fact that we can even ask these questions, and that even though I think we're capable of more harm than good, the good we're capable of is infinitely greater than the good of any other living creature known to exist.

Our potential is unreal, we just frequently fail to live up to it. We're the Allen Iversons of the universe. And other animals are... I dunno... Shawn Bradley or something...

[Don]

Did they advance to a mega-intelligent state so that they don't respond to our attempts to communicate because we're like insects to them?
We're the stars of a weekly series on the 'Verse Tube, called Survivor:Universe. Every week we're in danger of getting voted out of the universe. Thankfully, other civilizations have screwed up worse than we have so far.

[Williebee]

Who knows? But given what we do "know" about life on Earth and the universe, I have to say we're the superior species, based in part on the fact that we can even ask these questions, and that even though I think we're capable of more harm than good, the good we're capable of is infinitely greater than the good of any other living creature known to exist.

Our potential is unreal, we just frequently fail to live up to it. We're the Allen Iversons of the universe. And other animals are... I dunno... Shawn Bradley or something...

Ok, but what if that is exactly the same perception that a shark or some such has about his own species. He thinks, he asks the same question of other sharks, and of the other fish in the sea. Sometimes he lets them answer before eating them. He's not impressed with our technology, if only because it doesn't taste like chicken. He has no need for an ATM, or a lawyer. (Insert your joke here.)

We just don't know it, because we don't speak shark.

It's all flights of fancy, sure. But it's all just perception, too.

So, can I go with "Yeah, we're the superior species, as far as we know."?

[Tiger]

In no time flat, the first thing that popped into my head was a beaver: stream to pond. Builds huts. There are all kinds of other examples, particularly in the insect world.

"This IS Ceti Alpha V!"

So-called lower animal adapt on an evolutionary scale--i.e.: not within their individual lifetimes. Put a New York cabbie in rural China and he'll learn a new language and perhaps learn how to farm. He'll live. Put a beaver in a desert and he won't survive.

Intelligence and culture are what set us apart.

[Jcomp]

Ok, but what if that is exactly the same perception that a shark or some such has about his own species. He thinks, he asks the same question of other sharks, and of the other fish in the sea. Sometimes he lets them answer before eating them. He's not impressed with our technology, if only because it doesn't taste like chicken. He has no need for an ATM, or a lawyer. (Insert your joke here.)



You'd have to ask Aquaman what the sharks think. He's surprisingly accessible given how little need the JLA have for him during really important missions. Just hangs back in the Hall of Justice... playing Xbox...

Really though, I dig what you're saying, and maybe we're just not there with unlocking the mindsets of sharks, but I'm guessing that isn't the case just based on--if sharks were that smart--they'd be able to tell when we're just screwing with them. "Mmm, is that blood in the wat--ohoho no. Not this time pal. Freaking humans with their chum luring me to the surface for their stupid Discovery Channel shark weeks."

[Ruv Draba]

Yes, others no doubt share it. But it's a self-serving, ego-striking sort of view, imo.Some of the argument (like the crocodiles and fungi) is meant to be light-hearted, parodic and fun; some of it (like animal capability and the parallels between Euro-imperialism and species-supremacism) is serious. The serious stuff has a factual basis; I don't think it can be dismissed on motive, but I'll own that the parody mightn't be to everyone's taste. My intent was to have some creative fun with the argument, not at the expense of any poster. Please accept my apologies for any offence I might have indvertantly caused. I posted in the belief that you might enjoy my mock 'crocodile eating a baby' theory of species supremacy too. :D

What you can't do is stop being human, stop having a human viewpoint. Again, you're fooling yourself if you think you can.What do you feel is a 'human' viewpoint then, and how do we come by it? Is it learned or innate?

I'd suggest that if it's learned, it can be unlearned or relearned. If it's innate -- if you mean that we have a human's nose and therefore can't smell what a dog can, well that's true. But it's also true that we have a nose, and we have curiosity... so we can recognise what a dog is doing when it uses its nose and displays fascination at the foot of a tree. We can't understand what it's smelling or what sense it's making of that without experimentation... but that experimentation is occurring. We may never know for sure what it feels like to be a dog, but we can understand motives, cognition and capability better and better.

I'm not sure but I think you're saying that all humans are not only tribal, but equally tribal because we're human. That we're innately bound to favour our own species above any other. I don't see that at all. Some humans are very tribal creatures; some are quite solitary. My mother once raised a foundling pigeon that socialised as a dog (when she took her dogs on their morning walk, the pigeon would walk too as much as it could, and onlly fly when it got left behind). I think it can be the same for people too.

See, you're still playing the role of the scientist, supposedly detached from the whole affair. But you're not. You can't be.I don't know about 'role'. Science is a discipline. We can choose to adopt its methods or not. But we don't need to be perfectly detached to point out the flaws in a model in any case. We just need to be able to see and explain them.

People rank everything. People have preferences and they can articulate those preferences.The second is true, but it doesn't imply the first.

Which do you like more? Dogs or cats? Some people can answer that question instantly, but I can't even understand the question. To me they're not better or worse or equal; I can find comparisons between them but I can't find an authoritiative comparison, so I can't rank them. It's not a posture; it's a mental characteristic of some personalities. Check the 'other' list on the survey then look at the posts of some of those punters -- it's not just a Ruv-pathology.

You asked me earlier why I think you don't share that world with me. My answer is that I think we share an overlapping world -- a rational world of intuition and function and efficiency which makes me grin with delight when I read your posts, but the fact that you think such a comparison is 'obvious' and scorn anyone who can't make it as posturing, tells me that you don't have to live with this on a daily basis, and haven't had to go to dinner with people who'll sometimes take twenty minutes to order an entree. (That's not me, by the way; I have strong preference but am weak on ranking. But I have friends of a similar stripe who can't even find a basis for preference).

What good is this 'I can't compare them' handicap? Well, among the feelies it makes the very best creative visionaries -- people who can rhapsodise endlessly on similarity and difference without ever having to judge them. Among the thinkies it creates the best linguists and architects -- people who'll happily dive into foreign thought and alternative models with wild abandon.

What good is the 'I must compare them' compulsion? It creates mastery of sciences and crafts and technologies and methods.

Which is better? Sorry -- I can't compare them. :D

Anyway, it's not posturing. It's variance in mental architecture.

Think about what I'm saying here, again. Please. You say you're smiling with every post...Well, yes... I'm enjoying your posts not because I think they're wrong, but because I enjoy how you're approaching the problem -- please see my earlier comment about 'diving into foreign thought with wild abandon'. As for your dissing me, I don't care because it's not the object of your argument; it's just a by-product.

Well see, part of the viewpoint you and others are giving involves offering "zingers," mocking the fools that actually think they're superior...I'm going to ask you to take my word for it that I'm not thinking that. If I can't compare dogs and cats then I have neither the need nor the capability to maintain a league-table of rightness and wrongness among my esteemed colleagues. I'm a horribly pedantic and relentless arguer, but for me it's grooming; it's not a bloodsport. Which is why if I ever offend you, or if you weary of it, please just say so and I'll back off. :Hug2:

[Williebee]

Crap, now I'm thinking about this more.

It occurred to me that it wasn't so long ago we humans thought monkeys and dolphins were just "dumb animals". For that matter, it wasn't that long ago, historically speaking, that some among us thought others of our own species were just "dumb animals". Look how long that has taken to work out?

I'll still go with some form of "We're superior as far as we know." but the ground feels a bit more shaky.

[Ruv Draba]

It occurred to me that it wasn't so long ago we humans thought monkeys and dolphins were just "dumb animals". For that matter, it wasn't that long ago, historically speaking, that some among us thought others of our own species were just "dumb animals". Look how long that has taken to work out?You've nailed it, Willie. There's an historical human tendency to dismiss that which, for economic reasons, we wish to dominate. And once we have those feelings, we'll tend to simplify our analyses to support them. That too is an historically proven behaviour.

What lies outside that thinking? Nothing terribly simple, I'm afraid. Nature doesn't seem to run a species league-table. That's a human invention; the apex predator deciding that apex predation is the best place to be...

Except that there are only a few really ancient apex predators still around -- sharks and crocodiles being the only two that come to mind. Nature shuffles its apex predators in and out as ecological tectonics shift. On the other hand, there are plenty of ancient non-apex predators around -- ferns and most animals lacking a spine.

[Bird of Prey]

"This IS Ceti Alpha V!"

So-called lower animal adapt on an evolutionary scale--i.e.: not within their individual lifetimes. Put a New York cabbie in rural China and he'll learn a new language and perhaps learn how to farm. He'll live. Put a beaver in a desert and he won't survive.

Intelligence and culture are what set us apart.

Not necessarily, Tiger. When you put a NY cabbie in rural China, he is dependent on others of his species for his survival. He is dependent on interaction with his species and the learning he does is from his species as well, as the native species already has a learned subsistence. Put a NY cabbie in the desert, he won't survive either. . . .

[robeiae]

What do you feel is a 'human' viewpoint then, and how do we come by it? Is it learned or innate?

I'd suggest that if it's learned, it can be unlearned or relearned. If it's innate -- if you mean that we have a human's nose and therefore can't smell what a dog can, well that's true. But it's also true that we have a nose, and we have curiosity... so we can recognise what a dog is doing when it uses its nose and displays fascination at the foot of a tree. We can't understand what it's smelling or what sense it's making of that without experimentation... but that experimentation is occurring. We may never know for sure what it feels like to be a dog, but we can understand motives, cognition and capability better and better.It goes well beyond all of this. Imo, there is such a thing as human nature. And we can't separate ourselves from that nature, no matter how much we like to pretend that we can. Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518

I'm not sure but I think you're saying that all humans are not only tribal, but equally tribal because we're human. That we're innately bound to favour our own species above any other.No, I'm not saying that, at all. "Tribe" and "tribal" are not relevant terms, with regard to what I am saying.


I don't know about 'role'. Science is a discipline. We can choose to adopt its methods or not. But we don't need to be perfectly detached to point out the flaws in a model in any case. We just need to be able to see and explain them.
When it comes to the nature of human existence, you--and everyone else--are necessarily limited by that nature in any attempt to explain it. You can only explain it in human terms, never in crocodile terms.
The second is true, but it doesn't imply the first.The first is a generalization and is not a literal truth, with regard to all people, all things, and all times. But the reality is that ranking--and the articulating of such--is a very human thing, beyond just preferences for day-to-day existence.


You asked me earlier why I think you don't share that world with me. My answer is that I think we share an overlapping world -- a rational world of intuition and function and efficiency which makes me grin with delight when I read your posts, but the fact that you think such a comparison is 'obvious' and scorn anyone who can't make it as posturing, tells me that you don't have to live with this on a daily basis, and haven't had to go to dinner with people who'll sometimes take twenty minutes to order an entree. (That's not me, by the way; I have strong preference but am weak on ranking. But I have friends of a similar stripe who can't even find a basis for preference).

What good is this 'I can't compare them' handicap? Well, among the feelies it makes the very best creative visionaries -- people who can rhapsodise endlessly on similarity and difference without ever having to judge them. Among the thinkies it creates the best linguists and architects -- people who'll happily dive into foreign thought and alternative models with wild abandon.
I don't mean to be overly critical here, but it's the assumption of a unique point of view that always gets me, justified in whatever way. Sometimes it's the simple form of "you don't know what it's like to be X," sometimes it's presented in a more casual manner, but I find it all presumptive in the end.


What good is the 'I must compare them' compulsion? It creates mastery of sciences and crafts and technologies and methods.

Which is better? Sorry -- I can't compare them. :D

Anyway, it's not posturing. It's variance in mental architecture.
Respectfully, I disagree.

[Cyia]

Slightly off-topic, but not really.

Had a teacher today tell her class that humans aren't part of the food chain. (Friday she told them owls eat alligators and (IIRC) elephants eat crocodiles.)

And yet, this still isn't as bad as the science teacher when I was in Middle School who said fish eggs were seeds, therefore fish are plants...

I'll be weeping for our youth's future if anyone wants to join me.

[Ruv Draba]

It goes well beyond all of this. Imo, there is such a thing as human nature. And we can't separate ourselves from that nature, no matter how much we like to pretend that we can.Species don't fit in boxes -- rather they're a fuzzy cloud clustering around a centroid. The centroid may not shift very quickly, but you can find outliers many standard deviations away. This applies to behaviours and underlying cognition just as much as physiology.

The idea of fitting species into boxes is a human invention -- a taxonomic convenience. There's nothing in the taxonomic definition of a cat that admits 'born with one eye' or 'born with webbed feet' and yet there are cats that have just these characteristics. But they're outliers so for practical purposes we pretend they don't exist. But some mutations can occur because the centroid gradually drifts; others can occur because an outlier is surprisingly viable. An example of the latter is a moth in the UK which shifted colour from cream to charcoal in the 19th century, when soot-deposits on tree-trunks made the white moths easier to hunt. There were too few generations for the centroid to shift gradually; it was the 'sports' -- the outliers -- in the face of environmental cataclysm that shifted the species.

Another example is the domestiction of dogs. Turns out (because it was verified experimentally) that it takes only 15 generations to turn a wild canid into a domestic one -- if you breed only outliers for the right attributes (and it turns out that the key attribute is 'cuteness'). 15 generations is nothing, but it revolutionised dog-nature and may well have revolutionised human-nature too. (References for either of these available on request).

In many ways, the evolution of human thought has worked similarly. Sometimes the middle creeps ahead; sometimes the old middle collapses and a new middle forms on a more viable outlier. But someone has to nucleate those outliers -- and it turns out that the people who most often do that have very similar psychological profiles. Einstein and Rutherford were both first-rate scientists, but Einstein's psychology was very different from Rutherford's. In an era where revolutionary science wasn't needed, Rutherford would have progressed science incrementally and Einstein would have dreamed on the fringe and been ignored. But Einstein happened to live in an era where old science was proving inadequate, so he wrested science away from Rutherford. I've always thought it unfair that Einstein was iconified in popular myth and Rutherford wasn't (except maybe among scientists). 95% of the really important science is done by Rutherfords. Most of the time, Einsteins are too dreamy to be useful.

When it comes to the nature of human existence, you--and everyone else--are necessarily limited by that nature in any attempt to explain it.Can you characterise that nature? If you think you can, how do you know that characterisation is correct? And if you can't, how do you know what level of empathy one species can apply to another? I think it's an axiomatic position, Rob, I don't think it's an argument.

I don't mean to be overly critical here, but it's the assumption of a unique point of view that always gets me, justified in whatever way.It's not unique; just statistically rare -- a few standard deviations from the centroid. With billions of people, there are quite a lot of people that far from the centroid. But you don't have to get too far away to get some perspective on what the middle is doing. (Arguably, it's the goal of artists to shun the middle for just that reason -- or perhaps they do it inevitably because of what drew them to be artists.)

[dclary]

I am a racist. I believe the human race is the greatest race ever.

End of story.

[Magdalen]

It goes well beyond all of this. Imo, there is such a thing as human nature. And we can't separate ourselves from that nature, no matter how much we like to pretend that we can. Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518 (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518)

(From The Universality of Human Nature and the Uniqueness of the Individual) Indeed, some behavioral geneticists are forceful about challenging the value of characterizing a shared human nature, given their estimation of the magnitude of genetic differences. Page 18
http://www.debralieberman.com/downloads/courses/625/Tooby_Cosmides_1990_Uniqueness.pdf (http://www.debralieberman.com/downloads/courses/625/Tooby_Cosmides_1990_Uniqueness.pdf)


I don't mean to be overly critical here, but it's the assumption of a unique point of view that always gets me, justified in whatever way. Sometimes it's the simple form of "you don't know what it's like to be X," sometimes it's presented in a more casual manner, but I find it all presumptive in the end.

You seem to be totally disregarding Ruv's (& others, including mine) main point, which is that the need and/or desire to rank the species in a hierachial manner is invalid and indicative of some type of human insecurity. If the question had been limited to the category of intelligence, which was not defined specifically in the OP, it would have been, as you say, "obvious". As a matter of fact, you attempt to twist the argument back on itself by claiming the lack of a desire to rank to be self-serving, when clearly the need to rank is just exactly that! If the question had been specific to intelligence, I would have voted 'Yes' humans are more intelligent than animals. But since the question attempts to cover the broad expanse of the term "superior", it is wide open as to how each individual defines that term. I think each of us is entitled to his/her own interpretation and likewise the observations and arguments based on that.

There have been a lot of excellent comments and thoughts shared in this thread and I have enjoyed it quite a bit. As a matter of fact, this thread will rank high on my top ten list of AW threads! (Ha ha)

Originally Posted by robeiae http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4163301#post4163301) Yes, others no doubt share it. But it's a self-serving, ego-striking sort of view, imo.

[Ruv Draba]

There have been a lot of excellent comments and thoughts shared in this thread and I have enjoyed it quite a bit. As a matter of fact, this thread will rank high on my top ten list of AW threads!Hear, hear. It's not about who's right.. it's far more about the insights produced in the discussion -- on all sides. For that reason I want to thank every poster who's reaching to produce insights -- scientific, philosophical or creative -- on this topic.

I'm not planning to write something about human supremacism/dominance/superiority any time soon, but I am working on something to do with tribal politics, and virtually every exchange here is making my creativity ping. I'm very grateful that we can have this discussion in a polite, enjoyable, open and civilised fasihon.

[robeiae]

You seem to be totally disregarding Ruv's (& others, including mine) main point, which is that the need and/or desire to rank the species in a hierachial manner is invalid and indicative of some type of human insecurity.
No. Actually, I'm saying that the point is--itself--invalid. I'm saying that those who want to make that point are playing their own superiority game.
As a matter of fact, you attempt to twist the argument back on itself by claiming the lack of a desire to rank to be self-serving, when clearly the need to rank is just exactly that! If the question had been specific to intelligence, I would have voted 'Yes' humans are more intelligent than animals. But since the question attempts to cover the broad expanse of the term "superior", it is wide open as to how each individual defines that term. I think each of us is entitled to his/her own interpretation and likewise the observations and arguments based on that.

From earlier in the thread:As Ruv Draba and others have pointed out, the ranking of species is specious (i.e. apparently good or right though lacking real merit) and represents a mind-set rank with the stench of bias and prejudice. If one fails to see the implicit balance of design within the structure of the natural world and is willing to rank humans above animals, I would suspect such a creature is likewise bound by an endless requirement to create and sustain a system of hierarchy, requiring the designation of positions within the classification, which, by extension contributes to and aids in the repression of those individuals by the aforementioned elitist postulation.

The question of superiority sounds like an excuse to misbehave to me. If I feel superior to you then I get to treat you badly and not be accountable for that, even if I know you're suffering. It means that my desires matter more than your needs. Superiority isn't a state of being, but a social posture, a political conceit, a way of ignoring our own pangs of empathy and conscience.
That's not just interpretation of the issue, it's a designation of all opposing viewpoints as the product of weak-minded--for lack of a better way to say it--assholes.

Right?

[Ruv Draba]

That's not just interpretation of the issue, it's a designation of all opposing viewpoints as the product of weak-minded--for lack of a better way to say it--assholes.

Right?I think you're confusing the general with the specific, Rob.

Humans have a history of developing a superiority complex when they want to exploit a species or group economically, or ignore the needs of another species or group for their own economic gains. The 'facts' on which they base these claims have a history of being mistaken, full of unquestioned myth, sample bias, confirmation bias and pseudoscience -- essentially, the same dynamic as we've seen in racism. I have plenty of historical references to support this if you want.

Emerging science shows that our superiority beliefs continue to be debunked, the more we understand about animal capability and behaviour, yet the mainstream still holds those myths. I believe that socially, the primary reasons for doing so revolve around economic self-interest. You've chosen to personalise that to construe a point I didn't make: that everyone who believes in human superiority is being an asshole.

I didn't make that point and don't support it.

[MGraybosch]

Cats are superior to humans; they've suckered the human race into building a technological civilization while keeping cats as companion animals and helping them spread across the planet.

[Tiger]

Not necessarily, Tiger. When you put a NY cabbie in rural China, he is dependent on others of his species for his survival. He is dependent on interaction with his species and the learning he does is from his species as well, as the native species already has a learned subsistence. Put a NY cabbie in the desert, he won't survive either. . . .

I don't recall any ground rules specifying that members of one species couldn't depend upon others of their species in order to be counted as having adapted to an environment. You mentioned termites in your post as well--individual members of which wouldn't survive anywhere for long.

Culture is one of the things that set humans apart. Members of the cabbie's species can and do survive in deserts already. Last I checked, Las Vegas contained plenty of human inhabitants.

A beaver has no culture and no members of his own species living in deserts with which to adapt to his environment. His tools for survival include only his instincts and his physiology--which are both specialized into utter uselessness outside of a four-seasoned, semi aquatic environment with plenty of leaves and tree bark to eat.

...And that tail is a third-degree sunburn just waiting to happen.

[Magdalen]

No. Actually, I'm saying that the point is--itself--invalid. I'm saying that those who want to make that point are playing their own superiority game.

Define superiority in this sense, please. Because I think alot of posters have realized that the term is too vague. It's like asking which is better, hot or cold water, and arguing endlessly based on our personal perception of which temperature is more useful. (i.e., boiling hot water at the North Pole or icy, cold water at the Equator) So, if my appraisal that the question asked is too broad-based ends up being accompanied by a subtly snide suggestion that it's an invalid question borne out of the misguided need for supremacy, I would think that would make me observant with a latent tendency toward efficacy, but not necessarily superior in any other way than that. I'd also like to firmly state that my declination to rank humans above or below animals absoultely does not equate to my considering them equals. They are not. They are both neccessary elements of the natural world.

From earlier in the thread:
That's not just interpretation of the issue, it's a designation of all opposing viewpoints as the product of weak-minded--for lack of a better way to say it--assholes.

Right?

I've tried to be precise in my explanation of the balance of nature (in lieu of specific criteria such as intelligence, speed on land or keen eyesight) not being an appropriate subject for the broadly defined question as stated, and I've even stated that were the question limited to intelligence alone, my position would be different. If you think the poll question is fine as is and a swell way to stimulate discussion, maybe you should vote twice.