Are Humans's Really "Superior" to Animals?

[pathansen]

Why is it always assumed that we are more highly evolved than animals?
1. ANIMALS ARE NON-MATERIALISTIC - They are not greedy and only take what they need to survive. All my cat needs is food, shelter and affection and he's happy.
2. ANIMALS DO NOT START WARS
3. ANIMALS LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE - They don't destroy the earth. They are not the cause of Global Warming.
4. ANIMALS DO NOT PUT HUMANS ON THE "ENDANGERED SPECIES" LIST - We are putting ourselves on it.
5. ANIMALS OFTEN SEEM TO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS THAT HUMANS DON'T HAVE - A 6th sense.
6. ANIMALS DON'T HUNT AND KILL HUMANS JUST FOR FUN AND ENTERTAINMENT
5. FINALLY, ANIMALS ARE LOVING CREATURES WHO HAVE OFTEN RISKED THEIR LIVES TO SAVE HUMANS - Watch hundreds of true stories on Animal Miracles, Miracle Pets. Several times I've seen even pigs rescue humans. It makes me cry.

[eShirl]

1. humans ARE animals

[An Intellectual]

73. Yep, humans are simply smarter animals.

I wonder the OP has ever seen one animal kill another; it's some sick, slow, brutal stuff.

[Taverner]

2. Define superior

We are much better than animals at designing buildings, cars and farming food

We are inferior at flying, seeing in the dark, breathing underwater and reproducing asexually.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. actually...

we fly much faster and farther...
we see perfectly well in the dark...
we can breathe underwater for limited periods of time...
we got asexual reproduction figured out (sort of)

sP

[Taverner]

5. Ahh true with tools we have adapted in these areas

But can we filter feed?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. hmmm...intravenous...

kinda? breathing through your skin is pretty cool too...

:-)

sP

[Marrah_G]

3. Your question needs to be more specific. Superior in what aspect?

[pathansen]

18. Animals are less harmful

They might not have the skills that we have developed but some,
such as Dolphins, may be more spiritually evolved than we are.

[Marrah_G]

23. Again, less harmful in what way? to whom?

Your positions are not well thought out and you have your facts completely wrong in a number of instances.

Superiority is relative unless narrowly defined.

[Stellabella]

50. Animals (non-human) aren't destroying the planet.

Humans are.

[Marrah_G]

53. And I agree, humans are destroying the planet

But half baked posts containing erroneous facts does nothing to further the discussion. There are plenty of other arguments with merit to be made.

[The Straight Story]

113. Well nature itself is

just wait until the sun stops working :)

[pathansen]

109. Humans are the biggest predators on the planet

So, in my opinion, predators are not superior.

[bahrbearian]

7. All Dogs go to heaven.

Not so for humans.

[cali]

8. oh for pity's sake. so much wrong with your OP it's hard to know where to start

As someone pointed out, humans are animals. And yes, humans have more evolved brains than other animals. Also using the term materialistic re other animals is absurd. It's simply non-applicable. Nor do animals invariably live in harmony with nature. And no, other animals don't put humans on an endangered list. They don't have the cognitive or language skills to do so. Attributing a sixth sense to things we don't yet understand is simplistic.

Oh, and ever see a cat play with a mouse? They're having fun.

[Skip Intro]

9. By our own standards, we rate ourselves as superior. I think it's more a matter of respect tho,

rather than superiority. I think by and large that no animal has more or less right to be here than any other, and that all animals should be treated with due respect. My question has always been, from where does our right come to kill and torture and use animals for sport or entertainment, or worse yet decide to corrupt or destroy their natural habitat, or to look upon them as commodities? I submit we have no such right.

[Warpy]

10. #5 works both ways

The first time I was in an apartment building that caught fire, I looked around and stuffed my roomie's two cats under my arms and left. My roomie was duly impressed when she came home from work that I'd saved her animals instead of my stuff. The fire was put out and we opened the windows to clear the funk and that was that.

Today I'm owned by a cat and we're both clear on that relationship.

[pathansen]

16. Pigs don't eat humans.

Neither do cows.

[Marrah_G]

19. Pigs are Omnivores

[NeedleCast]

26. Really?

Pigs, hogs and boars will most certaily eat humans.

[Warpy]

43. Pigs will, they're omnivores, just as long as we're dead.

Cows are herbivores and wisely stay away from meat.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Pigs ate a bunch of prostitutes in Vancouver a few years ago.

:shrug:

[pathansen]

108. O.K., cows and chickens don't eat humans

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. So you're saying chickens are morally superior to pigs?

Sounds racist to me.

[Llewlladdwr]

116. Chickens certainly will.

I don't think there's too much chickens WON'T eat.

[PVnRT]

70. Get into a pen with some angry, hungry pigs and tell us what happens

They even eat your bones.

[dysfunctional press]

brick top disagrees strongly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HAQ3pNHwj4

[H2O Man]

96. wrong

[tom_paine]

11. I think domestic cats would hunt people, were we their size and they ours.

Numerous studies show cats keep hunting birds...even if they are well-fed.

In such a fantastic scenario, I would hope my cat could smell that I was still me, and therefore let me live.

But I would expect to get the same cruel treatment, which if humans were doing it would be considered sadistic and barbaric, as any mouse or insect by my kitty.

So, in that sense, I suppose, we are superior to cats.

[Taverner]

12. Yes, and they would torture us to death before eating us

[The Stranger]

29. But we would deserve it and thank them!

Cats are superior.

[pathansen]

14. They hunt for survival purposes

Can't survive without food.

[Marrah_G]

20. No- they hunt for fun, even when well fed.

[Stellabella]

49. No, that isn't 'fun', it's 'instinct'.

They're programmed to hunt even if they are well-fed.

Sheesh.

[Marrah_G]

51. have you ever seen a cat hunt. They often play with it for a long time.

The OP sees nature through rose colored glasses.

Are humans harming the planet and all who live on it? Absolutely

Are animals the fuzzy, peaceful, magnanimous being the OP is describing? Not even close.

When you try to make a point using falsities it harms your argument.

[Stellabella]

92. No, you're anthropomorphizing animals.

And yes, I've seen a cat 'hunt'. I have inside cats, but when a mouse got into the house, I've seen it. Their mothers teach them to hunt this way. It isn't 'fun'. They aren't doing it for entertainment. It's instinct.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. So, perhaps humans who hunt are simply following their instincts

[Stellabella]

93. No, a gun isn't a biological tool.

And human beings don't need to eat meat. Cats do.

[pathansen]

27. Well, dogs are also used for hunting purposes

but, like cats, they hunt primarily for food.

[The2ndWheel]

13. "more highly evolved"

Because we assume that evolution has a direction?

We're not more highly anything, we're just a different form of life. We're part of the diversity of life, which we're having a greater impact on, because we take more and more energy for ourselves.

[pokerfan]

94. Exactly

Every extant species is just as "highly" evolved and has millions of years of natural selection behind it.

From humans to chimps to the E. coli bacterium.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. 100% Absolutely We Are.

"Why is it always assumed that we are more highly evolved than animals?"

Cause we are. DUH.


"1. ANIMALS ARE NON-MATERIALISTIC - They are not greedy and only take what they need to survive. All my cat needs is food, shelter and affection and he's happy."

If they could be, they would be. They're not intelligent enough to be.


"2. ANIMALS DO NOT START WARS"

Ummmmmm, like, animals don't have the capability to. What a dumb point.


"3. ANIMALS LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE - They don't destroy the earth. They are not the cause of Global Warming."

Wait... Don't cowfarts contribute to like 40% of global warming or somethin like that? And regardless, once again, if they could they would.


"4. ANIMALS DO NOT PUT HUMANS ON THE "ENDANGERED SPECIES" LIST - We are putting ourselves on it."

Ok. This point doesn't even make any sense. It's just laughable.


"5. ANIMALS OFTEN SEEM TO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS THAT HUMANS DON'T HAVE - A 6th sense."

Some do, the overwhelming majority don't. And I'd take our advantages over theirs any day.


"6. ANIMALS DON'T HUNT AND KILL HUMANS JUST FOR FUN AND ENTERTAINMENT"

Because animals aren't as evolved. They don't really 'think'. If they did, maybe they would. Instead, some will kill ya just cause you stand too close to them.


5. FINALLY, ANIMALS ARE LOVING CREATURES WHO HAVE OFTEN RISKED THEIR LIVES TO SAVE HUMANS - Watch hundreds of true stories on Animal Miracles, Miracle Pets. Several times I've seen even pigs rescue humans. It makes me cry.

The OVERWHELMING majority of animals could give a rat's fat ass about you. Furthermore, Humans risk their lives to save animals and other humans a billion times more.

Yes, we're superior to animals. Get a grip.

[Cetacea]

41. You obviously haven't studied Dolphins

With brain capacity equal to or greater than our own, they have been living in concert with their environment since the time that humans were tree shrews.
Their inability to use tools is compensated for by built in survival features such as sonogram-like diagnostic tools and solid-state like communications apparatus.

They show an ability to learn abstracts faster than humans even though they have to figure out what we are asking them to do in experiments.
We know nothing about their language, even with out super computers.

They lack an ownership society and realize that total interdependence is dependent on survival.

They are smart enough to save drowning humans and charm us as they know we can wipe them out quite easily...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh, that was cute!

[LanternWaste]

67. Well, I think we can safely assume if nothing else...

Well, I think we can safely assume if nothing else, that dolphins appear to have much better manners that do humans...

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Dolphins are murderous rapists, according to the NYT.

http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/0999/199909outthere.html

[Marr]

86. A dolphin mugged my father.

Probably wanted money for his drug habit. Dolphins are fucking creeps.

[Cetacea]

102. Probably a pimp. They are extremely horny.

http://www.anti-dolphin.org/fear.php

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. You Ever See Them Eat? They Totalllllllllly Chew With Their Mouths Open.

:rofl:

[LanternWaste]

97. Only when they're eating chili

Only when they're eating chili...

[Cetacea]

100. You're not so bad yourself, boyfriend

LOL

http://www.anti-dolphin.org/fear.php

[Dr. Strange]

52. Does living in concert with the environment include infanticide?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980624/ai_n14153420

THE gentle image of dolphins was today severely dented by new evidence that they kill their young.

[Cetacea]

101. Since when does "Gentle" equal superior?

Dolphins poised to rule the world!!!

http://www.anti-dolphin.org/fear.php

[cali]

44. yikes. your OP is as ignorant as the one you're lamely attempting to critique.

just thinking in terms of "superior" is a huge breakdown in logic. As for "if they could they would"- utterly absurd. pffft.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. My Post Is 100% Factual. Deal With It.

It's a no brainer that for all intents and purposes we are 'superior' to animals, within the likely context that the OP was inferring.

Nothing ignorant at all about saying such.

And if animals had the ability to think and create as we did, you bet your ass they 'would if they could'. Get a grip.

[cali]

57. You've never learned the difference between fact and opinion. And that's sheer unadulterated

ignorance. You can't deal with it. Pathetic.

It is an opinion that other animals "would if they could". But your claim that cows would contribute purposefully to global warming if they could, is a hoot.


:rofl:

Between the OP and your fact free garbage, there's a perfect balance.

Superior needs to be defined. For instance, if one is speaking of survival, cockroaches are superior to humans. they've been around far, far longer. Hope that's simple enough for you.

[LanternWaste]

98. 100% fact based on an inference?

100% fact based on an inference?

(Infer vs. Imply-- different animals; but then again, a dolphin probably wouldn't know the difference)

[pathansen]

107. So you believe if Aliens came here, enslaved, tortured and ate humans, they would be our superiors?

Intelligence doesn't mean we are "superior".
Humans have harmed animals much more than they have risked their lives saving them.
Get a grip on the truth.

[tjwash]

17. Heh...walk naked into the deep forest and see how long you make it.

What we call "being superior" is our way of bragging about how "intelligent" we as a species are. The first major climate shift, or global natural disaster that happens (think Yellowstone super volcano blowing next week or something)...*poof* we are gone, and within the next thousand years there is not even a trace of us left. Shit...I'm willing to wager that peak oil will thin the herd tremendously, and only knock us back to the middle ages, if we are lucky.

The thing is; intelligence isn't a good tool for playing Darwin's "survival of the fittest." In fact, the human race almost got extinct right after learning how to walk on two legs, when our species was diminished by hunger and drought to a slim total of some ten thousand. Intelligence has a hell of a lot of evolutionary downside. Because of our ridiculous large brains, we are super-vulnerable to cold, heat or wounding. Because of our huge heads, we are the species that has most trouble with being born.

There's more. Try wrestling with a lion. Try catching a rabbit, using only your bare hands. Try surviving in a forest. Just peel away all the tools, toys, and "culture", and you'll see what humanity really is: a rather clumsy, weak and ill-equipped species with a ridiculously big head.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. We're only "superior" because we tell ourselves we are.

The "inferior" cockroach is far more likely to be around a lot longer than we "superior" animals.

Evolution has no direction "up" or "down". We are just another stray species inhabiting an unremarkable planet, circling a quite ordinary star, circling an average galaxy amongst trillions of other galaxies in what is likely a universe surrounded by trillions of other universes.

But, we think ourselves special.

[pink-o]

78. exactly. We think we're special, and armed with that ego

We use it as an excuse to fuck up our world--because after all, God made us in his image and gave us dominion over all things.

A TOTAL crock! It all depends on how you define "superior". A primate species with a large brain somehow managed to evolve and dominate all others, but not as good stewards. Not as thoughtful guardians--and NOBODY can disagree with that (I'm talking of humans as a whole, not the many individuals who're trying to fix what we might have broken).

Humans are not superior, neither are we special, endowed with good or evil or God or Satan or what-the-fuck ever. We're just a young species, a work in progress who're gonna backslide before we find our place in life.\

And unfortunately, our backslides--considering the immense power we wield--have huge repercussions.

[TooBigaTent]

22. It's easy to see where people come down on this - those that see non-human animals as

simply another "resource" of the planet that we humans have no responsibility to care for except to protect our exploitation of it

versus

those who believe that we have a responsibility beyond our own, selfish needs to care for the planet.

The debate about who is "superior" is used to justify the world-view already held. Thus, those in group #1 (the exploiters) will agree with Palin that slaughtering wolves from planes is OK because it is preserving the target animals for wealthy hunters.

Group #2 (the stewards) will condemn that atrocity because we believe that there is more to the equation than what is good for humans.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. Animals do start wars, do not live in harmony with nature and routinely render other species extinct

Sorry, but it's true.

The only reason animals appear to live in harmony with nature is that other animals (including parasites and bacteria) KILL them... otherwise almost every species on the planet would destroy the entire ecosystem given half a chance.

Rabbits in Australia didn't open rabbit birth control clinics out of concern for the environment.

When small-pox wiped out the Indians the Bison didn't respond with a grazing management program to gracefully incorporate their suddenly run-away populations into the plains biosphere.

When our little mammal ancestors broke open dinosaur eggs they didn't worry that a comet-strike had pushed the dinosaurs down to perilous population levels.



Since we are very smart we shave an obligation to do a better job of managing the ecosystem precisely BECAUSE animals will not do so.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

89. ...

[NeedleCast]

25. Depends on what metrics you use to measure superiority

ANIMALS have never created great works of art.
ANIMALS have never launched an object into orbit.
ANIMALS have never written an NYT best seller.
ANIMALS have never created a global communications network.
ANIMALS have never used tools to accomplish something greater than cracking a coconut open.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. Millie, the bush WH dog, was the listed author of a NYT bestseller

But I take your point.

;-)

[NeedleCast]

30. Didn't read it, just assumed Millie was a Republican

;-)

[tjwash]

32. Humans ARE animals. Or did "god" just miracle our asses here or something?

nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

33. that second one :-)

i like the descriptive ... he 'miracled' our asses here! i love it!

sP

[NeedleCast]

35. Obviously, but the OP is comparing "animals" to humans

as if they are not, thus my response.

[pathansen]

36. They are less harmful

In spite of all these inventions and creations, humans appear to be destroying ourselves and the earth.

[NeedleCast]

38. Again, your statement requires a metric

Less harmful to what? If I were a lion and you a water buffalo I don't think you'd feel the same way.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. and let's see what beavers do to the local ecology

to suit their needs...

sP

[VWolf]

31. Listen to THIS fundie logic

I got to hear this yesterday. I woman I know said that the reason humans kill other humans is because, unlike animals, humans know right from wrong and good from evil! WTF???

Using that logic, every murder would be justified in her eyes.

Anyone else ever heard that talking point?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. I don't think you've thought this through at all.

First of all, you haven't defined "superior". If you mean "morally superior", then the question is meaningless - animals aren't moral agents; one can't class their behaviour as moral or immoral any more than one can class a machine as moral or immoral. If you mean "practically superior", then no, humans are the species best able to accomplish most goals, due to our superior intelligence and opposable thumbs.

Secondly, many of your points don't hold water.

#1: Animals are nothing but materialistic - the claim that they take only what they need to survive is nonsense; most of them will eat as much as they can get.

#2: If you don't think animals start wars, take a look at ants, or what happens when two packs of e.g. meerkats meet on the boundary of their territories.

#3: "Living in harmony with nature" isn't really a meaningful term, but look at what happens to ecosystems when cats or rats arrive.

#4: No, but there are plenty of species that would wipe out humanity if they were in a position to do so.

#5: Some animals have senses humans don't have. Humans have intellect and language skills animals don't have, and create the Mona Lisa and pot noodles and computer games.

#6: Some species of animals hunt for pleasure, especially when young.

#5 again: The same is far truer of humans.

[NeedleCast]

40. Noodle Creation should be a metric in this dicussion

I say we use noodle creation as the sole metric for determining superiority.

Who's having drunken noodles for lunch? Me.

Who's having small, brown bits of kibble? My dog.

Humans win.

[bryant69]

37. Have you ever tried playing chess with an animal?

Other than Chickens it's barely a challenge at all.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[slackmaster]

47. I say let the Wookie win

[The Inquisitive]

39. almost every single one of your points is wrong

just an FYI

[slackmaster]

46. All animals are created equal

But some animals are more equal than others.

[Ishoutandscream2]

48. No, my two babies, Tiger and Annabelle, are much better company

and better companions than just about any human I know.

[Marr]

54. As a fellow human, I certainly hope you think we're superior.

Superior is a meaningless word without context, of course-- and objectively we're all just animals. But if a human and a house cat fall into a frozen lake, I hope that you would save the human first. It's part of the species contract.

Other species of animals are regularly seen aiding others of their own species, but it's very rare indeed to see an animal intentionally help an animal of another species (excluding humans and, occasionally, their pets). We all look out for our own first.

[Withywindle]

88. Your frozen lake example is not clear-cut.

Is the cat my cat? Is the human my rapist? Yeah, that's a pretty clear-cut choice alright, and species has nothing to do with it. :rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

55. (facepalm)

[Orsino]

58. Animals don't just take what they need to survive.

As with people, they compete to obtain as much as they can use, the better to ensure their own survival and that of their offspring.

If they had pockets and houses, they'd probably hoard as we do. :D

[dysfunctional press]

66. lots of nesting rodents collect lots of stuff.

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Yes.

Humans are animals, as other people have pointed out, but everybody gets your question.

1. "ANIMALS ARE NON-MATERIALISTIC" Beavers are materialistic. Pack rats are materialistic. So are Bower birds. More to the point, all sorts of animals frequently kill even young of their own species over limited food resources.

2. "ANIMALS DO NOT START WARS" Ants start wars all the time.

3. "ANIMALS LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE" Animals frequently overpopulate their ecosystem, and cause famine. Large animals are a major producer of methane. You'll notice vegans are frequently telling people how bad large animals are for the environment.

4. "ANIMALS DO NOT PUT HUMANS ON THE "ENDANGERED SPECIES" LIST" Animals can't make lists. Animals wouldn't care about making a list if they did endanger us. Plenty of examples where animals have driven other animals to extinction.

5. "ANIMALS OFTEN SEEM TO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS THAT HUMANS DON'T HAVE" Scientifically illiterate nonsense.

6. "ANIMALS DON'T HUNT AND KILL HUMANS JUST FOR FUN AND ENTERTAINMENT" Thank goodness for that. Animals that do kill other animals for sport, dolphins for instance, are thankfully not capable of killing people.

I think you mean 7. FINALLY, ANIMALS ARE LOVING CREATURES WHO HAVE OFTEN RISKED THEIR LIVES TO SAVE HUMANS Usually these stories are animals which are specifically trained for the job. Or are simply frightened and the noise they make alert others. You'll also not they're domesticated animals.

I'd hope that people who love animals so much would pay more attention to animal behaviour.

Oh well.

[Bill McBlueState]

60. this thread has it all.

I'm loving it.

:popcorn:

[RadiationTherapy]

61. My ability to think on this means: "yes". nt

[codjh9]

62. They also rarely kill other animals just for the hell of it! In fact, I think the only

time they do it is when there's something that's not normally occurring in nature, such as wolves finding a field full of sheep. They're so easy to kill compared to any wild prey that the wolves will overdo it. But I think under normal circumstances wild animals only kill what they eat. Can we say that about humans, whether hunting, wars, or senseless murders?

[dysfunctional press]

64. animals do start 'wars'...think ants for one. primates for another.

dogs for one, can be VERY materialistic. ours loves new toys, and is very selfish with all her toys.

as for "living in harmony with nature"- you should see what feral pigs are doing to hawaii. THAT should make you cry. and vast numbers of ground-nesting birds were wiped out by the mongoose. btw- have you seen what the emerald ash borer is doing to the ash trees across america? etc. etc....

4&5 are just...well...stupid. :eyes:

and how do you know that animals don't enjoy it when they kill humans...? :shrug:

as for your second number 5- are you trying to imply that humans HAVEN'T "often risked their lives" to save animals...? :shrug:

[EOTE]

65. Not with nuclear arms.

You can't hug people with nuclear arms.

You might be able to place the reference :P

[dysfunctional press]

68. i don't believe that humans have ever started a war with nuclear arms either...

btw- you can't hug people with broken, deformed or missing arms either...so what?

i've never understood that nuclear arms hug quote- it's silly & meaningless semantics.

[Godhumor]

74. He's quoting Family Guy at ya'.

Death on his memorable date with the pet store owner.

[dysfunctional press]

79. i don't think that quote started with family guy, tho...

i've seen it on dumb-ass posters for a couple decades, at least...i think it comes from the ultra-lame 'bless the bests and the children' era.

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. No being, human or othewise, has ever started a war with nuclear arms. n/t

[EOTE]

112. It was a Family Guy reference.

I thought QuestionAll would have been able to place it given his Brian avatar.

[flvegan]

69. Well, homo sapien has been around for what, half a million years*, right?

Some animal species have been around for a few hundred million years.

Problem is, this question is begging for an ego based answer. One of simple belief. I don't see why one is or should be "superior" to another.

*Some of these same homo sapiens believe that figure to be closer to 6,000. :eyes:

[ailsagirl]

71. Animals love unconditionally and are not prejudiced

I think they're superior

[Marrah_G]

80. Which animals love unconditionally?

Are you talking about domestic pets or are you talking about all animals?

Because frankly the truth is many animals have no capacity for love, even for their own kind. Some have limited love.

Some animals rape, some murder, some are cannibals, some hate their own kind, some would be lost without a group.

Nature is not the warm and fuzzy place you seem to think it is.

[ailsagirl]

81. I refuse to be baited

[Marrah_G]

83. You are not being baited

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. LOL, you made the claim.

So back it up.

[Lucian]

114. My pet dog seems to love me unconditionally.

[dysfunctional press]

103. that may be the dumbest statement on this thread- and THAT'S saying something...

if you think animals are so loving and unpredjudiced, head on over to lion country safari, and hop out of the car and start giving out some hugs.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jpgray]

72. Let's have fun and knock these down

First, no animal is generically "superior" to any other. You need to impose a specific standard of comparison. For example, bacteria could be seen as "superior" to all other animals, given their unprecedented success and robust chance of future survival.

1. ANIMALS ARE NON-MATERIALISTIC

Many animals are extremely jealous and protective of resources, mates and territory.

2. ANIMALS DO NOT START WARS

Not explicitly true. Chimpanzees in Gombe often viciously attack opposing groups, for no explicit purpose--forming a raiding party, entering the other's territory, and stomping to death some poor ol' chimp.

3. ANIMALS LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE

Nobody is equipped to destroy the Earth at present, we can only change it drastically. But I'll give you this one, since in terms of scale we outstrip any other animal's capacity to effect global change.

4. ANIMALS DO NOT PUT HUMANS ON THE "ENDANGERED SPECIES" LIST

This one is pretty nonsensical. But of course animals entering a new niche or environment often drive their competitors or prey to extinction.

5. ANIMALS OFTEN SEEM TO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS THAT HUMANS DON'T HAVE

Animals do have superior senses in many cases, but we're hardly the least capable in that regard.

6. ANIMALS DON'T HUNT AND KILL HUMANS JUST FOR FUN AND ENTERTAINMENT

Ever owned a housecat? Many animals hunt even without an explicit need for food.

5. FINALLY, ANIMALS ARE LOVING CREATURES WHO HAVE OFTEN RISKED THEIR LIVES TO SAVE HUMANS

Which animals? Are you talking mammals only here? Because yes, mammals have been known to protect other species from predation or danger--dolphins, humans, dogs, etc.

In other words, we're not uniquely inferior, nor are we uniquely superior. You'd have to construct some pretty artificial standards to fit humans in on either the top or bottom of some great "chain of being." Our big claim to fame is excellent symbolic thinking combined with an ability to use tools. Your empathy for animals and disgust for human cruelty is by definition a natural human trait.

[dorkulon]

82. Incapacity doesn't equal wisdom

Animals don't do these things because they can't do them, not because they're more noble. Rocks and trees don't start wars either.

I'm not sure if intelligence equates to superiority, but clearly we are the smartest species, which also makes us the most dangerous.

[greyl]

84. You're mistaking our culture for humanity at large. Huge mistake.

There are thousands of human cultures that don't exhibit the destructive and unsustainable behaviors in your list.

[cali]

85. no there aren't. there are but a handful- if any.

[greyl]

90. Most people, like you, don't realize it.

Our mother culture has no interest in making that info available.
Over the course of history, there have actually been 10s of thousands of human cultures very unlike ours.

Here's a good resource for the ones that still exist:
http://www.nativeplanet.org/indigenous/indigenous.shtml

edit: Guess how many discrete human cultures had existed in the Americas up until 300 years ago...

[cali]

91. sorry, ducky, you have no idea who I am or what I know

Yes, I know there were multitudes of discrete cultures throughout the Americas three hundred or so years ago. There aren't now. And please provide evidence that those cultures were free from the problems that plague human nature and thus human cultures. I'm sorry but this has more to do with basic human nature than anything else. It's amusing though to see people create the myth of the perfect indigenous culture. And sad at the same time.

[greyl]

105. Who you are and what you know is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

"the myth of the perfect indigenous culture" - Straw argument.

I know you well enough to know you're familiar with those.

[AtomicKitten]

87. Mine have better manners than many Americans.

[cobalt1999]

104. Someone needs to study evolution

It's obvious you don't understand the concept if you are using terms like "more highly evolved". There is no goal evolution or direction evolution is trying to attain.

[Greyhound]

106. I think this sums it up nicely,

"Man always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reason."

Douglas Adams

What scares me is that so many, obviously inferior, people cling to a belief that we are somehow not animals too.

[conspirator]

110. you forgot ANIMALS DO NOT ENSLAVE OTHER ANIMALS nt

[JCMach1]

111. I have to question #1,2,6

Due to the more recent chimpanzee studies...

Also, animals don't 'always' live in harmony with nature. There are many examples where animals have caused huge ecological imbalances and even destruction.

Most of what we think of as pastoral, rural England was shaped by the humble sheep. The great forests were literally eaten-up by the sheep.

[Lorien]

117. No, I see humans as equal to yet far more desructive than other animal

species. I know that it's PC to say that humans are ALWAYS more important, but as far as I'm concerned one honeybee contributes more to the planet than Dick Cheney ever will, and just one of my cats is more capable of love than 100 Freepers combined.

[old mark]

118. Humans are the only ones who can resopnd verbally,

so it depends who you ask.

I mostly prefer the company of dogs to humans, but I worked with people for so long I am biased.
mark

[LeftyMom]

119. Humans are animals.

The whole issue of moral separation is based on an assumption that isn't supportable, that humans are distinct from animals.

[Phoonzang]

120. Yes....we are.

Unlike animals, we have the capacity disparage ourselves because of the way we treat each other and animals.

[obamaforme]

121. my dog saved my life during a house fire.

Humans share 95% of DNA with apes. Dont forget.