Beating the dead horse of animals vs humans

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Exterminate!!!, Apr 8, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 2 of 4
  1. Exterminate!!!

    Exterminate!!! Registered Member

    Messages:
    254
    I would guess it as two things that classify us as different.

    Destroying the earth around us very well, and religion.

    Maybe we don't have much dominion over these "animals."

    :bawl:
     
    Exterminate!!!, Apr 10, 2009
    #21

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chris4355

    chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    All I am saying is that Animals was a word created by humans meant to separate us from them.

    OBVIOUSLY physically speaking we are animals, even animals know that! (get it?)

    So, now that humans are animals, if I need to describe a place that has animals, and no humans, what should I say?

    "This jungle is inhabited by animals, but no humans are there.":bugeye:

    Listen I am not trying to defend your friends stupid classifications.

    Just saying... humans are animals sure, biologically speaking.

    But come on, don't disallow me to use the word animal to describe something living that's not human.
     
    chris4355, Apr 10, 2009
    #22

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Homo sapiens is a species of the hominoid ("great apes") subfamily, which means we are apes, which means we are primates, which means we are mammals, which means we are vertebrates, which means we are animals.

    But there is indeed just one attribute that makes us qualitatively different from all other animals: our uniquely massive forebrain. Most animals live by the programming built into their brains (if they even have one) by their DNA: instincts and problem-solving skills of varying degrees of sophistication. All vertebrates, but especially the endotherms (warm-blooded air breathers, the birds and mammals) have a forebrain that sits on top of their instinct-driven hindbrain and gives them some ability to make conscious choices and develop individual attitudes that can modify instinctive behavior.

    But only Homo sapiens has such a huge and well-developed forebrain that we can overwhelm our hindbrain with conscious thoughts and override our instincts with reasoned and learned behavior.

    To be fair, the other primates and the cetaceans may be close to this level of evolution. But our brains are qualitatively larger than theirs. Consider that humans are born at an amazingly weak and helpless level of growth and our heads continue to grow massively after birth; this is because a properly-sized head could not fit through the birth canal. Newborn giraffes can run and newborn dolphins can swim; newborn humans can't grab, crawl or focus their eyes. As it is, the human pelvis is uniquely wide in order to accommodate birthing our babies' huge heads; many of our muscles have been extensively rerouted and strengthened to allow us to walk bipedally with our legs so offset from our bodies. The result is our gluteus maximus, which I suppose is one other thing you could say distinguishes us from the other mammals.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyway, our ability to transcend our nature by consciously choosing to overrule our instincts is what allowed us to invent tools, agriculture, cities, industry and electronics. Civilization was made possible by our forebrains and the ability to create it is our most incredible difference from the other animals.
    Yes, but either you're arguing disingenuously or you honestly don't keep up with these things. The rate of extinction of species has been much greater since the dawn of civilization, and has accelerated even more since the industrial revolution and the explosion of the human population. New species used to evolve and more-or-less keep up with the loss of old ones. That is no longer true. We've lost something like fifty species of frog just in the last few decades.

    Until we become much more adept at genetic engineering, biodiversity will remain crucial to the health of the biosphere and our survival. This is a purely selfish, homocentric point of view that does not require any emotional thrill over the drawings of the last auk or the photos of the dwindling population of Irawaddy dolphins.

    There have been times in the past when humans thought that diversity was unnecessary. During the Iron Age, the human population grew so abundantly that many people ate a diet that was overly rich in grains to compensate for the scarcity of meat. As a result of nutritional deficiencies that we were only able to identify and correct in the twentieth century, average life expectancy fell from the 50s at the end of the Stone Age to the 20s in the Roman Empire.
    I don't know how "efficient" it is, but there is one that works very well: prosperity. In all countries where the standard of living has risen to what we consider First World levels, the birth rate has fallen near or below replacement level. (The USA and Europe are propping up our social security schemes via immigration; the xenophobic Japanese are just watching their population grey.) In the rest of the world, as per-capita GDP rises, family size decreases, from twelve children to eight, from eight to six, from six to five, etc. People with more wealth:
    • Don't need as many children to support them in their old age;
    • Are able to pursue other interests than home and family;
    • Are better educated, more literate, more wired, and more in touch with the rest of us, so they can see how our lifestyle works for us.
    As a Moderator sworn to uphold the scientific method in this academy, I hereby invoke the Rule of Laplace and require you to support that extraordinary statement with some extraordinary evidence. Bear in mind that you must do so without violating any of the forum rules.
    Not true. Animalis is a Latin word meaning "animated," which distinguishes animals from plants. Ultimately it comes from anima, "breath." Animals are living things that breathe, which includes us. Obviously the Romans didn't know that plants also respire, but all animals take in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide, which is exactly the opposite of plants, so the distinction expressed by the Romans' word still holds even if it isn't exactly the way they perceived it.
    Indeed. Any carnivore will happily eat human flesh.
    This is a place of science and that is a very unscientific and misleading use of an important word. So I, too, will discourage you. "The other animals," "the non-human animals," "the rest of the animals," there are lots of ways to say it. Sure, they require more words, but that is the price of precision. Duh.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Apr 12, 2009
    #23

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Exterminate!!!

    Exterminate!!! Registered Member

    Messages:
    254
    Fraggle rocker for the win!
     
    Exterminate!!!, Apr 12, 2009
    #24
  8. chris4355

    chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    good info.

    I understand where you are coming from, and yes, scientifically speaking of course a human is an animal.

    I am speaking about the word in a more "social" context. If someone calls you saying there's an animal in his house you are not going to think of a human being.

    On top of that, you are not going to say "not the human kind right?" to verify...

    You know what I mean? The word animal is used for non-human organisms (plants and insects aside) in the English language.

    The reason why I believe this is because even though physically we are very similar, animals are different from us when placed in a more "social" context. You don't see animals reading books, hanging out at the beach and going to restaurants.... they may be alive, but they don't fit in our society for obvious reasons.

    After all, there are such things as a zoo, a veterinarian, or even animal control...

    They are separate from us, and I believe they need a word for it.

    Now, if I was reading a scientific report of some sort, then the meaning would change, and I would see the word "animal" as one that includes us in it.

    But when it comes to social life. I think having to add a description to the word animal so that people can distinct it as a "non human" or a "human" one is rather redundant.

    Because there's already a word for a "human animal" and that's a "person".
     
    chris4355, Apr 12, 2009
    #25
  9. GTUnit

    GTUnit Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    The distinction is simply due to human vanity... like they are special or supreme.
    Humans are animals. They have instincts and behaviors.

    The biggest similarity IMO is FEAR. That is the driving force behind much of our behavior.

    I think humans are more like insects. They infest and destroy by consuming all the resources available and then move on to repeat until nothing will be left.
    They are also quite stupid by making their own habitat toxic in the process.
     
    GTUnit, Apr 12, 2009
    #26
  10. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Using the word 'animal' like that is valid but vague. Someone might ask you if humans are there as well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The definition you are using is born out of arrogance.
    Would you be ok with another intelligent species calling all other life animals ?
     
    Enmos, Apr 12, 2009
    #27
  11. chris4355

    chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Frankly I don't think I would care what they called me.


    I don't think its arrogant for us to separate ourselves from animals. After all, we live in a society together and most of us do not see or interact with anything but domesticated pets throughout our lives.
    With that being said, I feel like they are separate from us to some extent. I don't see anything wrong with considering them different, and using the word "animal" to classify them in that sense.

    I also don't think its arrogance but maybe convenience.
     
    chris4355, Apr 12, 2009
    #28
  12. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    And that is arrogance.

    Of course non-humans are different from humans.
    The same goes for non-ants, there are all different from ants as well.

    It's not wrong, it's biased and vague.

    Convenience out of arrogance.

    By the way, I didn't specifically mean you in my previous post. The arrogance part was meant in general.
     
    Enmos, Apr 12, 2009
    #29
  13. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I agreed with you until you compared humans to insects. Insects do not naturally 'infest and destroy all resources available and then move on to repeat until nothing is left', that's just humans.
    Humans cause insects to behave in that way sometimes (agriculture+our huge numbers).
     
    Enmos, Apr 12, 2009
    #30
  14. chris4355

    chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    I think we just share different views on how we perceive animals and nature... but thats a whole other topic.

    We don't live, eat, sleep, talk, have sex with, go out on dates, play soccer with ants... Whether you like it or not a word to separate us from them is necessary.

    Nothing vague about it, its like using the word insect. A "vague" word, but still necessary.

    I know.
     
    chris4355, Apr 12, 2009
    #31
  15. Cellar_Door

    Cellar_Door Whose Worth's unknown Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,310
    :bugeye: Why?
    Blackbirds mostly interact with other blackbirds; hedgehogs with other hedgehogs. Does that mean that they are 'looking down' on all other life forms?
     
    Cellar_Door, Apr 12, 2009
    #32
  16. Norsefire

    Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Humans are animals. The difference is that we have developed such a complex and extraordinary brain, that gives us such an extraordinary mind; we can feel a range of emotions, we can wonder, and we can consciously deny instinct.


    I agree with John; I don't see the point of keeping other species around if they do not serve us.

    Therefore, we should

    a) eliminate all nonessential species (or maybe eliminate them but keep a few in zoos/research)

    This would save resources and space; of course, we should keep all plants around and essential ocean species

    b) utilize and make more efficient the species that do aid us (better harvesting techniques, mass production, etc)
     
    Norsefire, Apr 12, 2009
    #33
  17. Baron Max

    Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    And how do you know that the other animals can't do the same?

    Is it the human ego that causes us to be so freakin' arrogant towards all other living things?

    Baron Max
     
    Baron Max, Apr 12, 2009
    #34
  18. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I think people have different views on the importance of nature. Most are completely wrong of course.

    Nor do ants interact with us like they do with each other. It is highly subjective to make a differentiation between humans and other animals. In fact, it wrongly implies some sort of superiority.

    Hmm.. it IS vague. You are using the street definition of the word. Not the proper one.
    And there is nothing vague about the word 'insect', it is perfectly well defined.

    I'm glad, I was worried there for a minute that you might take it the wrong way

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Enmos, Apr 13, 2009
    #35
  19. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Blackbirds don't make any conscious distinction between blackbirds and non-blackbirds.
     
    Enmos, Apr 13, 2009
    #36
  20. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So what ? Any other animal can do something that makes them unique as well.
     
    Enmos, Apr 13, 2009
    #37
  21. John99

    John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    "Blackbird don't make any conscious distinction between blackbirds and non-blackbirds."

    they must. squirrels only run around with other squirrels, the certainly make a definitive distinction based on being the same.
     
    John99, Apr 13, 2009
    #38
  22. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    agreed. Monkeys fling poo like no other animal I have ever seen.
     
    Orleander, Apr 13, 2009
    #39
  23. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Indeed. And that's sufficient evidence for me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Enmos, Apr 13, 2009
    #40
Page 2 of 4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page