Is there anything that makes humans unique?
- Thread starter TwistedEllipses
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The fact that we are the only animals to mould our environment to such an extent.
What I mean by this is that we are no longer limited by external forces as to where we wish to live. If we wanted to live in Antarctica, we could do it (at a great cost, but we could do it). We have essentially broken out of our ecological niche with our imagination, capability to plan and ability to use tools in conjunction with highy developed abstract thinking skills which, when combined with language, allows us to preserve information and work together far better almost any other animal. We have also had the drive to use the abilities to their fullest extent: Humanity didn't become the top dog of food chain until we already had efficient weapons, bows, metallurgy and habitats and organized hunting groups and so forth, since most other large predators are quite capable of killing humans with their natural weapons and superior physique.
It is the unique combination of our abilities and natural threats that has led us to develop beyond basic and crude tools and small tribal societies.
What I mean by this is that we are no longer limited by external forces as to where we wish to live. If we wanted to live in Antarctica, we could do it (at a great cost, but we could do it). We have essentially broken out of our ecological niche with our imagination, capability to plan and ability to use tools in conjunction with highy developed abstract thinking skills which, when combined with language, allows us to preserve information and work together far better almost any other animal. We have also had the drive to use the abilities to their fullest extent: Humanity didn't become the top dog of food chain until we already had efficient weapons, bows, metallurgy and habitats and organized hunting groups and so forth, since most other large predators are quite capable of killing humans with their natural weapons and superior physique.
It is the unique combination of our abilities and natural threats that has led us to develop beyond basic and crude tools and small tribal societies.
Humans have the capacity for shame and self loathing (no other animal will debase itself for moral or ethical reasons, in fact, no other species of animal has the concept of morals or ethics).
Humans have created written and spoken language (animals can communicate and can even convey advanced messages and meanings, but this does not amount to a language).
Humans are known to posess the capacity for abstract thought and question the purpose of their own existance and the nature of their world.
The fact that we question our individuality in the animal kingdom shows that we must posess a certain level of it.
Humans have created written and spoken language (animals can communicate and can even convey advanced messages and meanings, but this does not amount to a language).
Humans are known to posess the capacity for abstract thought and question the purpose of their own existance and the nature of their world.
The fact that we question our individuality in the animal kingdom shows that we must posess a certain level of it.
That's actually BS. Several groups of different social animals have ethicals rules similar to the 'Golden Rule' within their groups.Iron Mal said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3014747.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA630.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1
As far as we humans know, we are to only species so far to codify our morality and develop it into actual laws. But we are not alone in our morality.
From the last link "Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days."
"Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males? hands. "
God damn I wish I'd found this thread sooner. This is one of my pet arguments and one I spent a lot of time thinking about a couple years ago.
After about 4 months of considering this question on and off I came to the conclusion that there are exactly two things that seperate humans from animals.
1) We will create tools that serve no purpose other than to entertain.
2) We have currency.
Those are it. To people who are arguing that animals have no morals or aren't contemplative I would argue that Elephants have been known to carry the bones of dead members of their pack which indicates individual relationships and the recognition of the concept of death.
To those who are arguing that animals rely on instincts and do not adapt to new environments as readily as humans I would argue that as little as twenty years ago raccoons would travel in packs of two. Nowadays they travel exclusively in packs of three. The reason for this change is that they needed three raccoons to break into people's trash bins. Two to hold it steady and one to pop the lid. This revision goes against instinctual impulses and shows that raccoons are capable of adjusting their operating procedure to adapt to new environments.
To those arguing that animals are incapable of adjusting their environment I would argue that any animal which burrows or creates a nest is demonstrating the ability to adjust it's environment to suit its needs. Similarly, termites who create mounds larger than humans are, from their perspective, engaged in creating skyscrapers and apartment buildings. This demonstrates the ability to adjust the environment on a (comparatively) equal level.
To those arguing that animals only kill to eat I would argue that ants have regular wars with other ants, not for the purpose of eating their foe but simply because they desire to have the other ant's territory. Primates of various descriptions have been known to do this as well.
To those arguing that humans are the only animal with language I would argue that animals such as dolphins and whales have a more complex language than ours and that (for those arguing that for some reason only written language counts) animals such as gorrillas can be taught to understand simple words when they appear on a screen and thus are capable of written biologically capable of having a written language. Similarly, the fact that so many primates can be taught sign language demonstrates that they can associate a concept to symbol without any vocal indication which the definiton of a written language.
To those arguing animals aren't shallow or superficial I would argue that any animal that grooms itself can be thought of as superficial and similiarly, any of the countless species of birds whho choose to mate on the merits of the nest offered rather than the personality of the bird in question can be called shallow.
For those arguing that animals don't farm I would argue ants actually farm aphids demonstrating the ability of animals to engage in ranching and agriculture. On a similar note, ants often create very elaborate cities complete with trash dumps at the edge of the village. So, for those arguing that animals don't have a complex social structure or infrastructure, I argue that ants do.
Trust me, I've thought a whole lot about this. There are only two differences. We have currency and we create things like videogames.
After about 4 months of considering this question on and off I came to the conclusion that there are exactly two things that seperate humans from animals.
1) We will create tools that serve no purpose other than to entertain.
2) We have currency.
Those are it. To people who are arguing that animals have no morals or aren't contemplative I would argue that Elephants have been known to carry the bones of dead members of their pack which indicates individual relationships and the recognition of the concept of death.
To those who are arguing that animals rely on instincts and do not adapt to new environments as readily as humans I would argue that as little as twenty years ago raccoons would travel in packs of two. Nowadays they travel exclusively in packs of three. The reason for this change is that they needed three raccoons to break into people's trash bins. Two to hold it steady and one to pop the lid. This revision goes against instinctual impulses and shows that raccoons are capable of adjusting their operating procedure to adapt to new environments.
To those arguing that animals are incapable of adjusting their environment I would argue that any animal which burrows or creates a nest is demonstrating the ability to adjust it's environment to suit its needs. Similarly, termites who create mounds larger than humans are, from their perspective, engaged in creating skyscrapers and apartment buildings. This demonstrates the ability to adjust the environment on a (comparatively) equal level.
To those arguing that animals only kill to eat I would argue that ants have regular wars with other ants, not for the purpose of eating their foe but simply because they desire to have the other ant's territory. Primates of various descriptions have been known to do this as well.
To those arguing that humans are the only animal with language I would argue that animals such as dolphins and whales have a more complex language than ours and that (for those arguing that for some reason only written language counts) animals such as gorrillas can be taught to understand simple words when they appear on a screen and thus are capable of written biologically capable of having a written language. Similarly, the fact that so many primates can be taught sign language demonstrates that they can associate a concept to symbol without any vocal indication which the definiton of a written language.
To those arguing animals aren't shallow or superficial I would argue that any animal that grooms itself can be thought of as superficial and similiarly, any of the countless species of birds whho choose to mate on the merits of the nest offered rather than the personality of the bird in question can be called shallow.
For those arguing that animals don't farm I would argue ants actually farm aphids demonstrating the ability of animals to engage in ranching and agriculture. On a similar note, ants often create very elaborate cities complete with trash dumps at the edge of the village. So, for those arguing that animals don't have a complex social structure or infrastructure, I argue that ants do.
Trust me, I've thought a whole lot about this. There are only two differences. We have currency and we create things like videogames.
Our lack of ability to be content. Everything with some form of sentience thinks "I want that. If I have it I will be happy." When animals get what they want, they are happy. When Humans got it, we aren't happy. So we look for something else. This eventually leads to us escelating our culture and technology to levels incomparable to the achievments of anything else on the planet. So few of us can be truly happy, but that is our strength. It gives us the will to dominate, to rule, and to expand. We are the only species on this planet which might not die with it.
Except for livestock. We'll bring them to feed upon.
Except for livestock. We'll bring them to feed upon.
Agreed.Firia said:I'm pleased I'm not the first to say it.xxhazyshadowsxx said:Rationalized thought processes is what sets the human race apart from others. I mean, do you know any animals that can prioritize something over natural instinct?
I first learned about that concept from Shakespere's literature.
He was truly a smart man. He definitely knew about humans and how we interact.
Yes. Raccoons. As I've said above they've adjusted their instinctual hunting/gathering pack to suit a more modern kind of prey, the suburban garbage bin. In the old days a pack consisted of a mom and a dad racoon who found food for their kids. Nowadays its three raccoons (A mom a dad and a complete stranger which again takes adjusting) who hold the can and pop the lid, splitting the food between themselves and giving it to their kids.Firia said:I'm pleased I'm not the first to say it.xxhazyshadowsxx said:
This is an entirely unnatural situation and one which is now common place amoung raccoons. The act was a completely logical response that defied their animal instincts. Therefore, animals have rational cognitive thoughts and furthermore they have been known to act upon them.
I'm going to assume this hasn't been mentioned so far, though I haven't read pages 2 and 3.
Uniqueness is overrated.
Even writing off the adaptability inherent in extensive cultural transmission (which is writing off a ton), humans have numerous other advantages. However, someone at TV Tropes already beat me to it, so I'll just quote them.
Uniqueness is overrated.
Even writing off the adaptability inherent in extensive cultural transmission (which is writing off a ton), humans have numerous other advantages. However, someone at TV Tropes already beat me to it, so I'll just quote them.
Untrue. Animals are never content, they have a drive to constantly aim for better food, better territories, etc. The reason they don't usually make great achievements is that they are unable to because animals have limited capabilities and because they more often than not live in enviroments that only barely fulfill their bare necessities. Humans don't achieve much either when they're stripped to living in harsh conditions, ever look at the news and wonder why people in poor countries just can't pull their shit together? It's in our nature, survival takes priority over long-term effects of what we do. The fear for your survival hijacks your your highly developed brain before you can say "opportunistic scavenger". But it's true that animals have a limited understanding for the abstract, so they don't usually yearn for abstract unfulfillable ideals like many people do.VoidProphet said: