Are humans, animals?

[FalloutJack]

Snippity

The Shakespeare comment was a joke. It's an old gag.

Now, who's to say? Well, if you won't, I will. Sorta' the point, I guess. Some people just sell themselves short. Well, not for me to worry about. However, not for you to say whether I understand or not. I'm dealing with things I can know and put some proof behind. When the animal kingdom wants to assert itself on our level, it certainly do so.

 

[Belaam]

Well, we sure aren't vegetable or mineral.

But more sincerely:
an·i·mal
ˈanəməl/Submit
noun
1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

So, um, yes. Undoubtedly. As to what would make us not animals... um I guess downloading our conciousness into computers, robots, etc. Though I'm not completely sold on that ever actually being possible - I'm not sure our minds can exist without the biological elements.

 

[Ipsen]

Another coin in the 'we're animals' bucket.

We're not that special, though, and I wouldn't even call us 'higher' or 'better' than other animals.

Think about it. Put a human, as is, in armshot of a tiger, and see who lives. Most likely it's the tiger. Hell, contest him against an elephant or whale, and check the outcome. Random battles aside, there's nothing part of our physical stature that makes us more powerful than other animals. We still hold 'dominion' over them (or at least some measure of it). Why?

Really, credit goes to the progress of building human society over the past few millenia. The progress of building sophisticated communication methods not only kept us alive longer, but led to ideas, plans, and actions that could surpass what humans normally can't do on their own. Advancing interdependence, and the growth it provides, leads us to where we are now.

So humans COULD kill that proverbial tiger with a gun, which we can all be pretty sure that the user did not think of the idea, and/or mine the metal and other materials to build it, and/or taught themselves on how to use it. But some other people did, for that person (most likely by extention of society).

 

[Salad Is Murder]

PINS

Nope, nope. Shut it down Bel. No argument ever has been improved by including a dictionary-like definition of anything in the history of anywhere, even the internet.

SNIP

You touch on an interesting point here that should be followed up on. It is not necessarily our technology that allowed us to hunt and kill the tiger, but that we are a social creature. One man didn't have to hunt the tiger because ten men would hunt with him, even before we had the technology to fire a missile into that tiger from an iPhone; never mind the fact that thousands of years ago we created a system by which one human can transfer complex thoughts, ideas, tactics and whatever else directly into the mind of another human.

Also, it's worth mentioning that humans are bipedal (duh) but also that it's an incredibly energy efficient method of traveling over long distances and has allowed us to hunt very effectively for a long time.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

House cats don't hunt

Most of them do.

That aside, if you want to say humans are the best animals ever, feel free, but the definition of animal is pretty much just "multicellular organism that develops into a fixed body plan and eats other living things." So unless we turn into shapeshifters or start photosynthesizing, we're animals. Don't try to derive some deeper meaning from it. It's a spot on a family tree.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

If you'd allow me to willfully and obnoxiously miss the point for a second:

http://i.imgur.com/9fkqiQt.png

Welp, I guess we're animals. Pack up and go home, folks.

...I get the implication behind the question: are we, ultimately, no better than monkeys despite our technological advances. And maybe on a universal level we aren't, but planet-wise we certainly have more influence than any single species and we've certainly got a more organized and complex civilization then one of them. We're still "animals" in a biological sense, but we've accomplished far more than any others have.

I'm not entirely sure what there is to discuss here though, facts are facts, and this seems to go nowhere but an entirely semantic discussion on what the connotations of "animal" actually are.

 

[geK0]

This is pretty much one of those semantic arguments that isn't really worth having.

Are humans animals? it depends on the criteria used to classify something as an animal

Is minecraft a game?
Is dubstep music?
Are dehydrated ramen noodles food? (no they are not)
Is Europe a continent?
Is pluto a planet?

It all really depends on how those things are defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_discord

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Well...we're not vegetables or minerals...In the sense of 'are we animalistic' I guess you could say that we still are. Animals live to survive and, spread their genes on to new generations which are things that we still do. We have it a lot easier than the average animal on the...uh, lawn but we still do everything in our power to continue surviving and, propagating our species. We make and, as Omega said, take our tools for granted but we still need them to keep ourselves from dying or starving or indeed, to keep ourselves reproducing. They may not have thumbs but if a wild cat were to lose the functionality of a leg it would try to repair or replace it if such was at all possible. As for the foodchain, we really don't have any more natural predators. There may be a time when we discover extra terrestrial life but I don't think they're going to want to devour us in a bestial sort of way...honestly, they would probably just do to us what we do with cows, chickens, etc. That's in the future though; as of now, we eat almost literally whatever we want to eat.

I'm still going to say that we're animals though. Humans are still largely governed by chemical processes taking place within the brain, just like many other animals. Humans are driven by impulses and responses that were programmed into our minds centuries-upon-centuries ago by our eldest of ancestors. We're getting away from that in ways but we're still somewhat there. In time we'll likely augment ourselves into supers but we're just not quite there yet.

 

[michael87cn]

No we are not.

We are sentient. We were made to be better.

We rule them, they obey or die if they threaten us. We're their masters.

Only we can decide.

Animals can only act.

The very fact that I can choose to act and speak in such a 'strange' manner or believe 'differently' than the majority here, shows just how important the distinction is.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

technically speaking we could be super mega death lifeforms if we wanted to be.

Dude, have you looked around lately?

WE ARE.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Of course not. We're eukaryotes. Animals don't even have the flagellae needed to create and operate a forklift, and they require two individuals to even reproduce! Unless I'm mistaking my life for that unusually vivid dream I had about My Best Friend is Invisible.

Or, to put it how most people put it, yes we're animals by definitive answer, and there is no meaningful semantic or moral answer. Hell, we're not even sure if we're the only sentient animals, even though we're still more intelligent than most cetaceans, corvids, and other primates.

medicine I'll give you, although we are not the only creatures to care for the sick. That is shared by many social animals.

Some animals actually do <url=http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/chimps-self-medicate-111129.htm>understand medicine, though I imagine pharmaceuticals are beyond any below the level of Grodd.

 

[loc978]

By your standards, OP, pets or livestock we've domesticated and developed foodstuffs for are no longer animals either. My dog still hunts for fun, but she wants nothing to do with eating raw meat.

As for what would make us not animals... assuming "consciousness" is more than just electrical impulses in our brains (I'm firmly on the side that thinks it's nothing more than that)... the transfer of human "consciousness" or "soul" or whatever other bullshit someone wants to invent into a machine would make that human no longer an animal.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

By your standards, OP, pets or livestock we've domesticated and developed foodstuffs for are no longer animals either. My dog still hunts for fun, but she wants nothing to do with eating raw meat.

As for what would make us not animals... assuming "consciousness" is more than just electrical impulses in our brains (I'm firmly on the side that thinks it's nothing more than that)... the transfer of human "consciousness" or "soul" or whatever other bullshit someone wants to invent into a machine would make that human no longer an animal.

Wait, are you saying that your dog is like some kind of serial killer? More human than we thought, no?

Was the bullshit you're referring to this:

...thousands of years ago we created a system by which one human can transfer complex thoughts, ideas, tactics and whatever else directly into the mind of another human.

 

[Kyrinn]

No we are not.

We are sentient. We were made to be better.

We rule them, they obey or die if they threaten us. We're their masters.

Only we can decide.

Animals can only act.

The very fact that I can choose to act and speak in such a 'strange' manner or believe 'differently' than the majority here, shows just how important the distinction is.

I think you believe the ability to think and act is more important than it actually is. Humans are not the only animals to display self-awareness. We are at the top of the food chain sure. However, we are still bound to it. I can literally choose to kill myself right now. How does that decision make me any different than any animal? All I've done is remove myself from the gene pool. It's no different than a random act of nature taking out a completely healthy individual in some other animal population.
Also, "We are made to be better" is a load of crap. Human skeletal and muscle structure is pretty terrible. We just aren't optimized for standing upright.
Also, there's a reason our bodies start to go to shit after 40. It's because at that point we are past the typical age of reproduction. Just like all other animals, our bodies just care about making it to sexual maturity. That is the point of all life, to reproduce and die. Sure we've created somewhat meaningful lives for our elderly but I do not see how that makes us any less animal.
Alsox2 I don't see how being in control of less intelligent species makes us not-animals. What other kingdom would we fall under? We are still driven by the same basic needs: consume, grow, reproduce, die.

 

[Nimzabaat]

It's 2014 and we still kill people over skin colour, sexuality, and religion. Humans are still very much jumpy, panicky, stupid animals.

Hate to contradict, but animals don't kill over any of those things. So calling humans animals is kind of an insult to the animal kingdom. (well technically humans can influence that, you can make a dog kill another dog because it thinks you're god I guess).

OT: Seeing as the broad choices are animal, plant or mineral. I'll go with animal. Or potato. A lot of us are potatoes.

 

[rednose1]

Nope, we're above animals. We use that term because we have nothing better to describe ourselves.
We've evolved to the point where it's possible to mess around with genetics, including our own.
We've removed ourselves from being dependent on mother nature, and even reforming it to suit our needs.

We might've been animals back in the day, but it's like growing up. We've moved past that moniker.

 

[loc978]

Was the bullshit you're referring to this:

...thousands of years ago we created a system by which one human can transfer complex thoughts, ideas, tactics and whatever else directly into the mind of another human.

Nope, that would be language. Ideas are not "consciousness", and your definition is inaccurate. Language cannot transmit thoughts, nor does it transmit ideas directly. It transmits through a medium, be that paper, LCD, or vibrating air.

 

[Euryptus]

Are humans animals ?

Frequently, I'm afraid.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Yes.

Next question, good job Escapist Off Topic.

¬__________¬

A hairless monkey that can do calculus is still a hairless monkey.

This.

Just because we aren't feral animals doesn't mean we aren't animals. Animal is a biological category, not a statement about how civilized we are (or are not). We are animals as opposed to plants, bacteria, or fungus. Just like we're vertebrates (we have spines) rather than invertebrates.

For that matter, I dare you, OP (not you Daystar), to look at any of the nastier wars currently going on around the world and not find quite a lot of "animal" behavior.

Wait, no, scratch that. You, OP, are posting on the internet right now (or when you wrote the OP). That is a social behavior, which is indicative of mammals (particularly primates). Your question about whether we are or are not animals is, in of itself, animal behavior.