What do you think separates humans from other animals?

[A Satanic Panda]

The difference is pants.

Nothing else wears pants.

Those strange leggings that the barbarians wear? Bah! Togas are what civil societies wear.

 

[A Shadows Age]

I'm not going to state that we're not smart animals, but to try and say that because of technology we're somehow above, superior to, or separate from animals seems the height of arrogance. We have what we have because of a fluke of evolution. It's a combination of intelligence and the hands to make use of it.

But unlike animals that evolve to best fit their environment, the environment is now adapting to us. Moths have changed color to blend into urban areas, and trees grow faster because of the increased CO2 levels. Bacteria is evolving to become immune to antibiotics. All of that happens because of us.

Evolution now has (almost) no control over us. We can preserve our lives so well that what is considered best fit for the environment has become blurred. Therefor even with genetic disorders that would normally kill a human and remove them from the gene pool, we can treat (some) of the disorders and allow them to pass the bad genetics on to their off-spring. I think that we have very effectively separated our selves from animals.

Ah yes, and mother nature still doesn't seem to notice any deference. Hurricanes, floods, nice destructive waves, earthquakes, volcanoes etc etc... As far as us being the cause, well not so much it would seem. Apparently the cycle of the globe heating up and then going into an Ice age has happened more than twice as far as we can tell. It just doesn't usually happen this fast, apparently it takes some ten millennium or more for a single cycle, It might be more interesting to see the affects of our actions on the rebound.

As far as the idea of control goes however, I think adaptation would fit better. Unless your thinking intelligent design, in which case who the hell knows...

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Ambition, I suppose.
We're never quite happy with what we have, so we're working hard to get to that unachievable goal.
Along the way we've uncovered a good deal of the laws of physics, craptons of science, culture, engineering masterpieces, and GOT INTO FUCKING SPACE.

 

[trollax]

Humans? they're the epitome of perseverance.
We're the perfect example of the virus called "life", and we spread like wildfire with little to no regard for others in our way.
Despite what's thrown at us a species, we've always survived and continued on.
That is what humans are.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

Snip all the quotes!

Ah yes, and mother nature still doesn't seem to notice any deference. Hurricanes, floods, nice destructive waves, earthquakes, volcanoes etc etc... As far as us being the cause, well not so much it would seem. Apparently the cycle of the globe heating up and then going into an Ice age has happened more than twice as far as we can tell. It just doesn't usually happen this fast, apparently it takes some ten millennium or more for a single cycle, It might be more interesting to see the affects of our actions on the rebound.

As far as the idea of control goes however, I think adaptation would fit better. Unless your thinking intelligent design, in which case who the hell knows...

... We'll control the weather soon enough...

As for adaptation rather then control, evolution gave us the ability to understand diseases, but only after we learn about it. We can't give our genetics all the credit, the individual make use of their highly developed brain. Not the genes. Edward Tell wasn't born with a mutation that made him understand hydrogen bombs after all. /soapbox

 

[SD-Fiend]

The ability to wipe out lesser species without even actively trying.

I mean, how many animal species have gone extinct from humans being human?

almost as many that went extinct naturally and if were not careful we'll beat that number...

 

[lRookiel]

That we waste our time trying to protect the ones natural selection should have weeded out, The ones that need a warning to tell them coffee is hot or to not drink bleach.

Ouch, cruel much?

OT: opposable thumbs, the ability to deviate and the fact were all much more intelligent with a sense of perspective.

 

[rammst13n]

denial, on the most basic level we are all the same

 

[Mauso88]

Humans feel guilty for trusting their instincts, animals do not.

 

[conflictofinterests]

My anthropology student senses are tingling!

Language and the capability to combine different objects into more useful tools handily separate Homo sapiens sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom, and, interestingly enough, the exercising of those two aspects light up very similarly in brain scans. On a side note, when people talk about other animals using tools, they're saying that the animal can put a few ideas together (perhaps long, thin twig, in long, thin termite hole), but humans can put together many more ideas than that (just for instance, rock, sharpened by another rock, tied to a stick, thrown via another stick to kill an animal). One of the critical points in human evolution was the advent of multi-material tools, which allowed us to make more effective and complex devices, such as the computers we are typing on today. This combination of many ideas is echoed in our capacity for complex and nuanced language. For instance just the sentence "what do you think separates humans from other animals" combines acknowledgement of sentience in others with the idea of our species, other species, and uniqueness. It's all quite meta.

Aside from that, culture to a large extent defines Homo sapiens sapiens from the others which were in the genus Homo. With larger groups came a need for efficiency, which made teaching via language and culture essential for survival, which also made the elderly valuable, so care for those who couldn't care for themselves became an institution in human society. The larger the groups got, the more stable the food sources had to be, and horticulture and pastoralism was incorporated into some cultures. Then agriculture in some fewer cultures. In any case, culture has become the main means for adaptation in our species, and while other animals may exhibit some aspects of culture, they are nowhere near as complex, nuanced, or adaptable as that of humanity. We can survive in the vacuum of space because of our culture!

 

[conflictofinterests]

Humans feel guilty for trusting their instincts, animals do not.

You can train a dog not to bark, or bite. They will shy away from you if you stare them down and they understand you are a pack leader. They feel "shame" for disobeying pack rules that go against their instincts.

 

[conflictofinterests]

denial, on the most basic level we are all the same

I guess on a cellular level you're correct, but humans are pretty fantastical creatures considering what we've been able to create.

 

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

Our smug sense of superiority.

 

[rammst13n]

denial, on the most basic level we are all the same

I guess on a cellular level you're correct, but humans are pretty fantastical creatures considering what we've been able to create.

I mean that everything we do is for self preservation, our basic instincts are the same, what we have done with them technologically surpasses animals however it is all for the goal of survival

 

[senordesol]

I mean that everything we do is for self preservation, our basic instincts are the same, what we have done with them technologically surpasses animals however it is all for the goal of survival

Watching a show about people dancing around with """"Celebrities"""" does not help my survival one bit. Arguing about what makes a human different than the rest of the animals does not help my survival one bit.

Beyond survival, humans seek immortality. This is why we establish traditions, separate languages, and cultures. This is why we create art, and (in a partial sense) invent. We like to think that our infinitesimally brief existences 'mean' something in the larger scope. The knowledge that a 'piece of us' will live on and even be revered is comforting and is intrinsically a very 'human' trait.

 

[Azahul]

But unlike animals that evolve to best fit their environment, the environment is now adapting to us. Moths have changed color to blend into urban areas, and trees grow faster because of the increased CO2 levels. Bacteria is evolving to become immune to antibiotics. All of that happens because of us.

Evolution now has (almost) no control over us. We can preserve our lives so well that what is considered best fit for the environment has become blurred. Therefor even with genetic disorders that would normally kill a human and remove them from the gene pool, we can treat (some) of the disorders and allow them to pass the bad genetics on to their off-spring. I think that we have very effectively separated our selves from animals.

You have an odd idea of evolution. Other animals always have an impact on the evolution of other species. That we're affecting other species is not surprising. And we are still evolving, quite clearly. It's impossible to stop evolution. It's based entirely on certain traits being passed on, and the fact that the genetically weak are actually breeding is not going to change that. It simply means our evolution is going to go down a different course. Evolution does not necessarily take into account what is best suited for the environment. The traits that are passed on are simply the traits that common in those individuals that are most successful at breeding. It is merely that normally, individuals only survive if they are suited to their environment, but it is not the only case. Humans are most certainly not the only species to evolve in ways that could be detrimental to their survival as a species, and this fact certainly doesn't separate us from animals.

In any case, the idea you seem to be referring to is natural selection, but actually, we still fit into the mechanics of that system. Normally, a biosphere has a certain amount of resources. When those resources are in abundance, it is common to see individuals with defects survive, even thrive, because they are not in direct competition with others of their species. I remember a survey done in a North American lake where it was found 32% of the fish were blind. Three years later, however, the fish population had reached the point where the weeds they lived on could no longer provide food enough for the entire population. A year after that, 0.1% of the fish population was blind. In times of plenty, it is possible for those with genetic defects to survive. When resources run out though, it is the ones ill-suited to survive that die first.

That, there, is what you're seeing in humans (particularly in first world countries). Our resources are in abundance. The weak can thrive. When, inevitably, a situation occurs where our resources are no longer so plentiful, then a great number of those unable to cope with the change in circumstances will die. Regardless, none of this separates us from animals. We are still subject to evolution.

 

[conflictofinterests]

denial, on the most basic level we are all the same

I guess on a cellular level you're correct, but humans are pretty fantastical creatures considering what we've been able to create.

I mean that everything we do is for self preservation, our basic instincts are the same, what we have done with them technologically surpasses animals however it is all for the goal of survival

Everything we do is not for self-preservation. You're on a motherfucking GAMING website, for Christ' sake. If all we did was self-preserve to the best of our abilities, there would be no art, no games, and certainly none of this [a href="https://www.google.com/search?ix=hcb&q=x+games&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=gFvxTrLPLoaLsQK62_GUAQ&biw=1920&bih=955&sei=hVvxTq_JDej2sQKz7YmVAQ"]bullshit.[/a]

 

[conflictofinterests]

But unlike animals that evolve to best fit their environment, the environment is now adapting to us. Moths have changed color to blend into urban areas, and trees grow faster because of the increased CO2 levels. Bacteria is evolving to become immune to antibiotics. All of that happens because of us.

Evolution now has (almost) no control over us. We can preserve our lives so well that what is considered best fit for the environment has become blurred. Therefor even with genetic disorders that would normally kill a human and remove them from the gene pool, we can treat (some) of the disorders and allow them to pass the bad genetics on to their off-spring. I think that we have very effectively separated our selves from animals.

You have an odd idea of evolution. Other animals always have an impact on the evolution of other species. That we're affecting other species is not surprising. And we are still evolving, quite clearly. It's impossible to stop evolution. It's based entirely on certain traits being passed on, and the fact that the genetically weak are actually breeding is not going to change that. It simply means our evolution is going to go down a different course. Evolution does not necessarily take into account what is best suited for the environment. The traits that are passed on are simply the traits that common in those individuals that are most successful at breeding. It is merely that normally, individuals only survive if they are suited to their environment, but it is not the only case. Humans are most certainly not the only species to evolve in ways that could be detrimental to their survival as a species, and this fact certainly doesn't separate us from animals.

In any case, the idea you seem to be referring to is natural selection, but actually, we still fit into the mechanics of that system. Normally, a biosphere has a certain amount of resources. When those resources are in abundance, it is common to see individuals with defects survive, even thrive, because they are not in direct competition with others of their species. I remember a survey done in a North American lake where it was found 32% of the fish were blind. Three years later, however, the fish population had reached the point where the weeds they lived on could no longer provide food enough for the entire population. A year after that, 0.1% of the fish population was blind. In times of plenty, it is possible for those with genetic defects to survive. When resources run out though, it is the ones ill-suited to survive that die first.

That, there, is what you're seeing in humans (particularly in first world countries). Our resources are in abundance. The weak can thrive. When, inevitably, a situation occurs where our resources are no longer so plentiful, then a great number of those unable to cope with the change in circumstances will die. Regardless, none of this separates us from animals. We are still subject to evolution.

To add to your first point: Birds didn't evolve wings to catch ground-dwelling prey. Porcupines didn't evolve quills to fend off herbivores. Cheetahs didn't become the fastest land animal to catch elephants.

 

[Deathmageddon]

That's easy. Self-restraint. Next question.