Poll: "What are you people, animals?!"

[electric_warrior]

Granted, but not all languages require talking. Sign language for example.

And, on a sillier note, what about ventriloquism? Some people can talk with their mouth shut.

Ventriloquists can talk normally, and sign language is teachable, so it counts.

Ahhh, but gorillas can be taught to use sign laguage. What are they? What they say may be simple, but it does not negate the fact that they are saying it.

And parrots actually can understand at least some of what they say (they can string together original, but rudimentary sentences, usually specifying what size of cracker they want or asking for more tea).

 

[Chunko]

I think it's very obvious that we are dominating the world. It doesn't matter if all our creations could be gone in a century (which probably isn't true), we're dominating earth right now.

What would make you say that? We're still at the hands of mercy of this planet's forces. Earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, you name it. Even a changing world hurts us because a large part of our species has lost the ability to adapt to changes. Bacteria, now they are dominating this planet. They are at the foundation of all else, without them all other life would die off. We're expendable surface critters, albeit with considerable power, the most powerful mammals around. We can destroy species, affect climates, yes we can do a lot, but we don't master the planet, we don't own it.

Yes we do own it. Look around you, we have bent this planet to our will. It doesn't matter if viri could hypothetically kill us, we still own this planet.

 

[Robert632]

Humans are sophistocated animals. What I mean by that is we wait until we have a vague reason before slaghtering each other.

 

[Ironic]

Something that has always bugged me is the way people use calling another person an animal as a pejorative. There are many. "You're eating like an animal!" "You people are no better than animals!" et cetera.

This has always struck me as absolutely stupid, and one of the grander signs of our dripping, seeping hubris. Sure, we're very intelligent, resourceful and adaptive, but are these not traits animals have too, in varying amounts?

So I put this to you, Escapists: do you see humans as animals, or did we cross some arbitrary line at some point that no longer delineates us thus? And if so, why?

You have two hours.

Turn over your answer sheet.

I believe the most appropriate way to answer this is with an outdated, yet relevant idea.

Id and Ego.

Humans see themselves as having a higher sense of right and wrong action, morality, if you will, and that animals lack this, acting purely through survival and survival of their species. You could put forward the argument that this is another function of survival on behalf of humans (religion/morality being social inventions to stop us from killing each other and to keep a handle on our intelligences such as abstract thought etc. to stop us killing everything) but the general consensus is that we're separated from animals* and other organisms on earth due to our concepts of right and wrong, rather than ACTNOW ACTNOW ACTNOW thinking.

[sup]Some primates have a sense of fair play, suck it bible-hoppers and morality junkies

>.>[/sup]

 

[Ironic]

I think it's very obvious that we are dominating the world. It doesn't matter if all our creations could be gone in a century (which probably isn't true), we're dominating earth right now.

What would make you say that? We're still at the hands of mercy of this planet's forces. Earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, you name it. Even a changing world hurts us because a large part of our species has lost the ability to adapt to changes. Bacteria, now they are dominating this planet. They are at the foundation of all else, without them all other life would die off. We're expendable surface critters, albeit with considerable power, the most powerful mammals around. We can destroy species, affect climates, yes we can do a lot, but we don't master the planet, we don't own it.

Yes we do own it. Look around you, we have bent this planet to our will. It doesn't matter if viri could hypothetically kill us, we still own this planet.

We don't know enough to truly manipulate everything on the planet, so we don't own it. Sure, we can destroy all life on it if we wanted, or at least most, and we can stop ourselves from dying out by manipulating our surroundings, but 500K years is a tiny speck if sand in time when it comes to how long LIFE has been on the planet.

Also, virii isn't actually plural of virus. Viruses is.
[sup]I had to look the virii thing up earlier when researching for a biology course

also, sorry about the two posts in a row.[/sup]

 

[Kurokami]

We can talk.
They can not.
We are not animals

Well that's daft logic. Cause dogs, cats, birds etc. can all talk, just not in the same way we do.

They don't talk, they communicate specific and primal feelings through utterances. Their 'dialogue' consists of "I'm hungry", "Danger!", "Hot damn you're fine" and probably a few others, some perhaps more specific.

Perhaps I draw the line at talking a bit differently than some, but to me that hardly seems as elaborate as humans who can speak of the past, present and future, as well as the capacity to manipulate words to create lies and concepts.

I'm not saying Animals are inferior (though given a criteria I'm sure I could easily make the argument), they are however different. Its in difference that we define ourselves, animal is the word I'd use if you were to bark for your food. For me that's where I draw the line, and it makes sense. (It is arbitrary after all)

 

[Chunko]

I think it's very obvious that we are dominating the world. It doesn't matter if all our creations could be gone in a century (which probably isn't true), we're dominating earth right now.

What would make you say that? We're still at the hands of mercy of this planet's forces. Earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, you name it. Even a changing world hurts us because a large part of our species has lost the ability to adapt to changes. Bacteria, now they are dominating this planet. They are at the foundation of all else, without them all other life would die off. We're expendable surface critters, albeit with considerable power, the most powerful mammals around. We can destroy species, affect climates, yes we can do a lot, but we don't master the planet, we don't own it.

Yes we do own it. Look around you, we have bent this planet to our will. It doesn't matter if viri could hypothetically kill us, we still own this planet.

We don't know enough to truly manipulate everything on the planet, so we don't own it. Sure, we can destroy all life on it if we wanted, or at least most, and we can stop ourselves from dying out by manipulating our surroundings, but 500K years is a tiny speck if sand in time when it comes to how long LIFE has been on the planet.

Also, virii isn't actually plural of virus. Viruses is.
[sup]I had to look the virii thing up earlier when researching for a biology course

also, sorry about the two posts in a row.[/sup]

Doesn't that just make it more impressive that we've gotten to this status so quickly.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Yes we do own it. Look around you, we have bent this planet to our will. It doesn't matter if viri could hypothetically kill us, we still own this planet.

That's what I was trying to say: we have not bent this planet to our will. It's like the Earth is this giant, alien computer, and all we can do is kick against it and flick a few switches.

We can destroy a lot, play with a couple of natural mechanisms, but that's it, that's not the same as making Earth our personal *****. We are still at this planet's mercy for the most part. We can't do anything about volcanoes, earthquakes or tsunami's, if all bacteria or plants would die out we would die out as well. We're still very much dependant on this planet, without it we die, without us the Earth would just go on like it did before us.

That said, of course we're a powerful species, the most powerful mammals ever. But all the changes we can make are extremely superficial, we can't change the way this planet works, we can't do anything we wish and are completely consequence-free. We don't even know everything about this planet, not even remotely, even the moon is better known to us than our planet's deep seas.

Doesn't that just make it more impressive that we've gotten to this status so quickly.

Impressive? Well, that depends on your perspective, I suppose. I guess it's rather impressive that in a couple 100.000 years we as a species are able to inflict massive destruction on this planet. But...yay? So we can destroy a lot, destroy ourselves in the process and the Earth just keeps spinning as if nothing has happened like it did a couple of times before (mass extinctions aren't unknown to this world). Life will go on (we can't eradicate all of it), develop again like it has done before and that's it.

 

[Ironic]

Doesn't that just make it more impressive that we've gotten to this status so quickly.

Or more depressing, seen as throughout the history of life on earth, the things that suddenly bloom massively in population.... tend to suddenly and violently die out. Already nearly happened once in that last ice age 10,000 years ago, they reckon the entire human population was reduced to what, 15,000 or something? I can't remember the number but it was damn low.

Happy thoughts

 

[Chunko]

Yes we do own it. Look around you, we have bent this planet to our will. It doesn't matter if viri could hypothetically kill us, we still own this planet.

That's what I was trying to say: we have not bent this planet to our will. It's like the Earth is this giant, alien computer, and all we can do is kick against it and flick a few switches.

We can destroy a lot, play with a couple of natural mechanisms, but that's it, that's not the same as making Earth our personal *****. We are still at this planet's mercy for the most part. We can't do anything about volcanoes, earthquakes or tsunami's, if all bacteria or plants would die out we would die out as well. We're still very much dependant on this planet, without it we die, without us the Earth would just go on like it did before us.

That said, of course we're a powerful species, the most powerful mammals ever. But all the changes we can make are extremely superficial, we can't change the way this planet works, we can't do anything we wish and are completely consequence-free. We don't even know everything about this planet, not even remotely, even the moon is better known to us than our planet's deep seas.

Doesn't that just make it more impressive that we've gotten to this status so quickly.

Impressive? Well, that depends on your perspective, I suppose. I guess it's rather impressive that in a couple 100.000 years we as a species are able to inflict massive destruction on this planet. But...yay? So we can destroy a lot, destroy ourselves in the process and the Earth just keeps spinning as if nothing has happened like it did a couple of times before (mass extinctions aren't unknown to this world). Life will go on (we can't eradicate all of it), develop again like it has done before and that's it.

It doesn't matter if the changes aren't that significant. If they are there, and we can make a bigger change than any other animal, then we are the dominant species.

 

[arcstone]

Before answering this question, I'd say you need to first ask the obvious other question.
What is an animal.

If you mean a creature other than humans, then no, were not.

If you mean unspecific living organic being, then yes, we are.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

We can talk.
They can not.
We are not animals

Well that's daft logic. Cause dogs, cats, birds etc. can all talk, just not in the same way we do.

They don't talk, they communicate specific and primal feelings through utterances. Their 'dialogue' consists of "I'm hungry", "Danger!", "Hot damn you're fine" and probably a few others, some perhaps more specific.

Perhaps I draw the line at talking a bit differently than some, but to me that hardly seems as elaborate as humans who can speak of the past, present and future, as well as the capacity to manipulate words to create lies and concepts.

I'm not saying Animals are inferior (though given a criteria I'm sure I could easily make the argument), they are however different. Its in difference that we define ourselves, animal is the word I'd use if you were to bark for your food. For me that's where I draw the line, and it makes sense. (It is arbitrary after all)

Who are we to say that though? We can speculate that it is all they are capable of, but when it boils down to it, we can only say "We believe that...". Until one day man finds a way to accurately translate animal communication, who are we to say that they are incapable of deeper methods of communicating?

 

[Soxafloppin]

Where Super Saiyan Animals basically.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Most humans are animals, but some are also vegetables.

LOL! I see what you did there.

OT: Humans are animals, get over it. Yes, we're omnivore mammals that eat, mate and sleep like every other creature on this earth(and we have a tail bone...). Why not? And why would it matter?

 

[Cowabungaa]

It doesn't matter if the changes aren't that significant. If they are there, and we can make a bigger change than any other animal, then we are the dominant species.

That's why I said, heck a couple of times by now, that we are powerful, and I quote myself. 'the most powerful mammal around.' But that doesn't mean that we own this planet. Bacteria are a lot more significant than we are, they and all other microbes are about 50% of the total Earth biomass alone. Plants are as well, they're bigger than us and are a lot more important than us. There are more lifeforms than animals, in the end bacteria and plants make a WAY bigger impact than we could ever dream about.

 

[Kurokami]

We can talk.
They can not.
We are not animals

Well that's daft logic. Cause dogs, cats, birds etc. can all talk, just not in the same way we do.

They don't talk, they communicate specific and primal feelings through utterances. Their 'dialogue' consists of "I'm hungry", "Danger!", "Hot damn you're fine" and probably a few others, some perhaps more specific.

Perhaps I draw the line at talking a bit differently than some, but to me that hardly seems as elaborate as humans who can speak of the past, present and future, as well as the capacity to manipulate words to create lies and concepts.

I'm not saying Animals are inferior (though given a criteria I'm sure I could easily make the argument), they are however different. Its in difference that we define ourselves, animal is the word I'd use if you were to bark for your food. For me that's where I draw the line, and it makes sense. (It is arbitrary after all)

Who are we to say that though? We can speculate that it is all they are capable of, but when it boils down to it, we can only say "We believe that...". Until one day man finds a way to accurately translate animal communication, who are we to say that they are incapable of deeper methods of communicating?

It would be evident by actions and patterns I assume and I'm positive someone in a lab coat, if not more than one, has already tried testing the theory out. Besides, humans are more likely to believe patterns than possibilities, there are too many of those.

Do you believe animals have discussions?

 

[Datalord]

Yes, vermin built the vatican and the suburbs, are bring the resources they need to survive into said places.
Vermin don't change the world, they ADAPT to survive.

They eat through brick, they leave tracks, they select a home. They do not change the World in a recognisable human sense, but they do change their environment. Pointing out that they did not build the vatican makes no difference. To them, the vatican is another resource to exploit. A human does not make honey either, but the bees. So who, in this relationship, is dominating who? The bee or the beekeeper? And does this relationship actually make the bee keeper superior to the bee?

...And the most important criteria separating humans from other animals is UNDERSTANDING.
Pavlov showed that animals can learn, and remember, but similar experiments performed after his showed that animals cannot remember specific items apart from standard "stimulus-response" scenarios for more than several minutes. The rat knows that food will come into the suburban house, but it does not know why, when, or how, and no experiment EVER has shown that animals are able to perform higher thought. Memorization is all well and good, but what about comprehension, synthesis, and evaluation?

All well and good, but Why should "understanding, memorization, comprehension, synthesis and evaluation" prove our superiority? All it proves is that we are smarter. What I keep repeating is that intelligence is of arbitrary value in understanding other species. Why should it be intelligence that proves superiority, and not say, resourcefulness or versatility?

Bad argument, because as the only species to survive in all climates and the vacuum of space, we ARE the most versatile and resourceful species.

But the reason higher thought means superiority is because without comprehension of superiority, superiority is pointless, if you can communicate to a rat that it is superior to a human, the rat won't care, for the rat, life goes on regardless of the designation

 

[Azure-Supernova]

It would be evident by actions and patterns I assume and I'm positive someone in a lab coat, if not more than one, has already tried testing the theory out. Besides, humans are more likely to believe patterns than possibilities, there are too many of those.

Do you believe animals have discussions?

I do

 

[maninahat]

But the reason higher thought means superiority is because without comprehension of superiority, superiority is pointless, if you can communicate to a rat that it is superior to a human, the rat won't care, for the rat, life goes on regardless of the designation

So what you are saying is that humans are superior, simply because only they can understand the concept of superiority in the first place?