Are Humans Animals?

warpus said:
Just because we're screwing things up doesn't mean that wen're not animals.

Ecosystem - An ecosystem is a combination of all the living and non-living elements of an area.

Hmm are we living?

This is what gets me about this whole topic. As I said before I am fighting a losing arguement. Why? Because science defines us as animals, I am saying science is wrong, and people are telling me to prove science is wrong by demonstrating this through... science. I try to show valid arguements and all I get in return is generalized definitions that science created. Science generalizes and groups stuff together, yet society today shows that this is wrong because exceptions to the rule exist.

Sure by that definition I can throw 20 lions and 15 deer in an open field in north america. This makes an ecosystem. But is it balanced? Hell no it isnt. After those deer are dead the lions are going to start hunting other game, possibly humans. Then they would be killed and this scenario would be over. Nature itself has a way of naturally selecting the environments for animals. Humans are above this rule. We upset the balance wherever we go and do not belong to any particular region. We have a dominion over the Earth like no other animal.


Babies are animals up until 2 or so, and then they turn into humans??

Well, the fact remains it is a baby human. As I said, sure it is equivalent to an animal at this point but I wouldn't "classify" it as one. This seems like nothing more than trying to spin the point. A baby is equivelent to animal, and may even be look at like one in their state of being through scientific definition. But scientific definition changes all the time. Science isnt right, its what we know so far.
 
King Flevance said:
This is what gets me about this whole topic. As I said before I am fighting a losing arguement. Why? Because science defines us as animals, I am saying science is wrong, and people are telling me to prove science is wrong by demonstrating this through... science. I try to show valid arguements and all I get in return is generalized definitions that science created. Science generalizes and groups stuff together, yet society today shows that this is wrong because exceptions to the rule exist.
Yes you are fighting a losing battle. The only argument youcan make for humans not being animals is to give them some attribute not available to animals. The sophistication of our science makes this harder and harder. Currently all that seems to "work" is a soul. Since it cannot be proven or disproven, no one can say you are wrong. But such arguments are falling out of fashion as christians try to "prove" their faith is true with science. That also is a losing proposition.

You can believe that humans are not animals, just like I belive that "god alone is", but such rash statements cannot be supported.
 
Birdjaguar said:
What weapon or tool do chimps have that people don't? How about chickens or bluebirds? Earthworms?

Chimps = A chimp's role is less than their abilities indicate. They are not strict vegetarians but they are primarily vegetarians. They do in fact eat meat but usually in the form of small animals such as birds and insects. Sometimes, on occasion they will even form hunting groups and hunt wild pigs or such. They have intellect and strength (8 times that of a human that is 2 times their size) as their primary tools as well as longer arms to reach fruit hanging from braches that could not support their weight. But the key thing to note here is that they do not hunt more than they need and they dont even hunt animals beyond what is neccessary as they mostly do forage for fruits and vegetation. Apes no doubt are the closest thing to humans, but they are still seperate due to the fact that instinct tell them to not "get greedy" and just start stockpiling food unnessesarily.

Bluebird = A Bluebird's role is population control on insects, as are most bird's. Their tools would be flight by use of wings.

Earthworm = An earthworm's role is to loosen the soil for root to grow. Everything it needs is in the ground to survive, thus it rarely needs to come to the surface. They have a role and they do it without any real major tool other than the ability to breath through its skin.

The tool is usually defined by the role.

Instinct is the expression of genetically controlled behavior. People have many genetically controlled behaviors that have nothing to do with morality including your personality. Even the fundamentals of what humans belief is beautiful is hard wired in our genes. Hyumans certainly have an instinctive need to dominate and control as well as to organize and understand. Our tool for that is our intellect.

Instinct - An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

Genetics may have a role in instinct but the defining factor is the environment and the animal involved. Instinct tells an animal that when food is abundant, this would be a great place to stay around. Instinct guides most animals through their entire lives and humans are seperate from this, as we have proven. It was not instinct that made us "want to sail a boat of the edge of the world to prove a point" it was the decision we made despite what seems obvious consequence. We ignore the laws of nature in becoming better than we are already. We in science terms "push our own evolution" whereas instinct would tell an animal "this is dangerous back off".

Totally bogus. The fact that people do bad things does not mean that they choose to do them. The implication here is that people are born pure and good and act badly because they choose to or other people or situations make them. Wishful thinking. I would suggest that 70-80% of what you do everyday is predetermined by your genes.

lol Bold by me, did the devil MAKE them do it? This statement is ludicrous.

I am not saying people are born good. IMO people are born neutral. But just because your father is an abusive alcoholic does not mean the child will be. Genetics have a small role in interests, veiwpoints, and even goals sometimes I will admit. But not 70-80%. I would say closer to 10-15%. You at any time can change how you decide to view something for any number of reasons. I find it lame that so many people refuse to believe that they are not simply drones to instinct and genes... like animals.
 
Birdjaguar said:
Yes you are fighting a losing battle. The only argument youcan make for humans not being animals is to give them some attribute not available to animals. The sophistication of our science makes this harder and harder. Currently all that seems to "work" is a soul. Since it cannot be proven or disproven, no one can say you are wrong. But such arguments are falling out of fashion as christians try to "prove" their faith is true with science. That also is a losing proposition.

You can believe that humans are not animals, just like I belive that "god alone is", but such rash statements cannot be supported.

I believe I have given the bold part in a few posts on this thread. The sentence that follows is a joke to me though. Sophisticated is something our science is not. As I said science is generalized. I have already given up on the OT board mostly because people cant even figure out what "proof" is on here and will debate that until the sun comes up. I see more antagonistic veiwpoints on here than I do intelligent debate responses. No offense to anyone, it isnt everyone and I am not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread or anything of the like. But I hardly see this board as one to ever reach decent conversation as it is always torn into some skewed irrelevant arguement before good conversation can surface.

EDIT: one more thing for a better understanding of my post, replace ecosystem with natural habitat. Maybe then my own miswordings won't be a factor and the point of the post may be read. To error is human.. or animal too I guess.
 
King Flevance said:
Genetics may have a role in instinct but the defining factor is the environment and the animal involved. Instinct tells an animal that when food is abundant, this would be a great place to stay around. Instinct guides most animals through their entire lives and humans are seperate from this, as we have proven.

Humans have figured out that you can take two seperate things, put them together, and make a new thing - a more useful thing.. more useful than the sum of its parts. We took this concept to an extreme and got a huge advantage over the other species.. and over millions of years we evolved into beings who view instinct as secondary only - mostly relying on our intelligence and problem-solving skills to make decisions.

If you go back far enough you'll run into human ancestors who relied on their instincts as much as any other species around at the time. We were clearly animals then - the only sort of argument you could use now is "We used to be animals but we evolved out of the kingdom Animalia - and now we're something else."

And I think that's a far more interesting question than: "Are we animals?"
 
King Flevance said:
Instinct - An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
If instinct is learned, then it is not genetic. If it is not learned anes by every generation, then the only method of transmission from one generation to another is gentics. I would contend that almost all instinctual behaviors in animals are genetically based.

King Flevance said:
Genetics may have a role in instinct but the defining factor is the environment and the animal involved. Instinct tells an animal that when food is abundant, this would be a great place to stay around. Instinct guides most animals through their entire lives and humans are seperate from this, as we have proven.
I don't think any such thing has been proven.

King Flevance said:
It was not instinct that made us "want to sail a boat of the edge of the world to prove a point" it was the decision we made despite what seems obvious consequence.
I would say that our genetic traits to wonder and want to understand creates the impulse to for such a voyage and the cultural and social pressures we create ecourages us to find a way to carry it out. Some people have much stronger inclinations than others.
King Flevance said:
We ignore the laws of nature in becoming better than we are already. We in science terms "push our own evolution" whereas instinct would tell an animal "this is dangerous back off".
"Pushing our own evolution" is a recent event of the last few hundred years and really only involves the question of letting people reproduce who in the past would not have been able. In the future will will have a more directive approach as we manipulate genes.

King Flevance said:
did the devil MAKE them do it? This statement is ludicrous.
Not the devil, their genes. Genes don't make people rob banks, but they do make people act in anti social ways. Robbing banks is just a way to do so. Genes tell females to seek out alpha males. Culture tell them what an alpha male is. Genes tell men to have lots of sex with many females. Culture tell them how to go about it and minimize trouble.
King Flevance said:
I am not saying people are born good. IMO people are born neutral. But just because your father is an abusive alcoholic does not mean the child will be. Genetics have a small role in interests, veiwpoints, and even goals sometimes I will admit. But not 70-80%. I would say closer to 10-15%. You at any time can change how you decide to view something for any number of reasons. I find it lame that so many people refuse to believe that they are simply drones to instinct and genes... like animals.
We will just have to disagree on how much genetics plays in peoples lives. :)
 
King Flevance said:
I have already given up on the OT board mostly because people cant even figure out what "proof" is on here and will debate that until the sun comes up. I see more antagonistic veiwpoints on here than I do intelligent debate responses. No offense to anyone, it isnt everyone and I am not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread or anything of the like. But I hardly see this board as one to ever reach decent conversation as it is always torn into some skewed irrelevant arguement before good conversation can surface.
Don't despair. Antagonism is an easy approach to difficult topics. Among the many frustrations of OT "discussions" nuggets can be found. You just have to rearrange your expectations. :)
 
King Flevance said:
This is what gets me about this whole topic. As I said before I am fighting a losing arguement. Why? Because science defines us as animals, I am saying science is wrong, and people are telling me to prove science is wrong by demonstrating this through... science. I try to show valid arguements and all I get in return is generalized definitions that science created. Science generalizes and groups stuff together, yet society today shows that this is wrong because exceptions to the rule exist.
As a christian you should know that basicly the scriptures says the same thing especially in Ecclesiastes which is Solomon own experiment of life "under the sun" (it was more of a scientific approach than a spiritual one). It's up to man if he cares to be something greater than just an animal.
The biggest different in views is some believe man evolved while the scripture claims man devolved. Man was created to be just a little lower than angels but fail down to just living as an animal ( many times worst than an animal since man has a choice.) It's one thing for a pig to live in a pig pen but it something else when a man lives in one.
 
Smidlee said:
As a christian you should know that basicly the scriptures says the same thing especially in Ecclesiastes which is Solomon own experiment of life "under the sun" (it was more of a scientific approach than a spiritual one). It's up to man if he cares to be something greater than just an animal.
The biggest different in views is some believe man evolved while the scripture claims man devolved. Man was created to be just a little lower than angels but fail down to just living as an animal ( many times worst than an animal since man has a choice.) It's one thing for a pig to live in a pig pen but it something else when a man lives in one.

Honestly, thanks for that. I am not well versed in the scriptures nor do I claim to know them. I think alot of Christianity is apparent in life if you are willing to accept it. Hopefully, so long as I keep at it, I will know these cool facts too one day. As for now, all I know is what I have learned to be true along the way. Anyways, thanks for stepping in for a quick thought. I needed it. :crazyeye:
 
King Flevance said:
Animal: A being that plays a role in its environment's balance. Its actions are based on instinct or by its senses being confused. Its body is usually made for the environment it is in with usually a "weapon" or "tool" that is "built-in" to aid them in their ability to carry out their instinctive nature.

Human: A being that has no role in the Earth's environment yet is also the the predator with the most potential due to its ability to pick a role. It does not act on instinct and but will suffer if its senses are consfused. Not having a role, its body has no "built-in weapon" or "tool" due to the fact they have no instinctive role to carry out.

An interesting definition. Is this your own or something you picked up elsewhere?

Humans, however, are not entirely without instinct but their instincts are more of a code of morality. As in it is generally instictive for a parent to protect its young. Although, there are many cases of a parent abusing, killing, or even selling their children for their own interest so this shows that the motives behind this act is not instictive but more as a role they have chosen.

In the animal kingdom the young is always protected by a parent until a certain state - sometimes a specific part of egg maturity. Instict is what tells the the animal when the time to abandon their young is present. Sometimes it is death that choosen when in cases where the parent will die naturally after birth. Animals will kill the children in many cases if their scent is lost as the child is recognized as an enemy. Most of the ways a child is orphaned into the world by animals would be considered inhumane by a society of humans.

I have a sense of what you're grasping at here, but I think since your original comparison is flawed you're having a hard time connecting the supporting dots. For example, what you're saying about animals abondoning their young is a ridiculous oversimplification. Animal behaviors w/ children vary greatly from species to species.

I'd also argue you've misunderstood instinct and made is some kind of bastardization in conjunction with morality.

But, rather than nitpick your argument, I'll offer something in return, an alternate to your alternate, so to speak.

I believe that humans are animals, in that there is a list of criteria that you meet and, therefore, a human is an animal. But, so is a fish. So is a salamander. My point is that just because a human is an "animal" does not mean that humanity is somehow not unique or not superior.

So, just as there are things that make a stingray unique from every other animal, so it is with humans.

In the case of humans, those unique things have put man in a position of superiority and dominance... for better of worse.
 
Martial Art's "instinct" is not what he's referring to. That's a trained response, which is why they improve with practice.

A newborn rooting for a nipple is an instinct.
 
It's not really a trained response either. I guess it's kindof inbetween, though.
 
Humans:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Superfamiliy: Hominoidea
Family and Subfamility: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. Sapiens
Subspecies: H.s. Sapiens

Yes, humans are animals.
 
.Shane. said:
An interesting definition. Is this your own or something you picked up elsewhere?

That was my own definition I wrote in a matter of minutes. I was suprised the opposable thumbs thing didn't surface one time after that definition as well.

I have a sense of what you're grasping at here, but I think since your original comparison is flawed you're having a hard time connecting the supporting dots. For example, what you're saying about animals abondoning their young is a ridiculous oversimplification. Animal behaviors w/ children vary greatly from species to species.

I could easily be mistaken on some animals not protecting their youth, however, I am not aware of any that do not... as I say at least to a point of egg maturity. Instinct is what tells the parent to shove them from the nest so to speak. It kicks in and says "its time". If you are aware of an animal that does not protect its young (non domestic animal) I wouldnt mind hearing about it.

I believe that humans are animals, in that there is a list of criteria that you meet and, therefore, a human is an animal. But, so is a fish. So is a salamander. My point is that just because a human is an "animal" does not mean that humanity is somehow not unique or not superior.

This is where my arguement will always be doomed to run into a brick wall. As the criteria you mention is a rule that science we created has invented. People who see humans as animals are take a more "conventional science" perspective on it. I personally see humans as far more advanced than any other species on the planet by evolution alone.

One of my main points I see that make us different is that we have no "natural habitat" that we don't play a role in through existance. Our "habitat" is societies we create wherever we wish on the planet. Then if I look at it from the philosophical standpoint, we are the only animal that was given the possibility of escaping the "wild". And further, it was in our best interest to escape the wild.
 
King Flevance said:
The simple fact that we have the ability to hunt and kill any animal through the use of our mind makes us above them.
Hmm.... kill anyone you want = above others.
...
Checking location...
...
Ok, understood.
 
Hey, enough squirrels can kill anything.
 
You're saying that all of our AIDS research funding should have gone into breeding squirrels to take care of the virus?

King Flev: I feel for you, because you're not really getting a fair shake. If you look at nature as a balanced ecosphere, then humans don't seem to fit into it. Up close, however, it really does look like nature is not balanced but a constant aggressive stuggle to dominate. In that way, we're very natural, just very good at it.

Nature does not seem to contrain us as much as it does other animals, because we adapt our environments so easily.

If we ask which species will adapt to Mars the fastest, I'd have to say that humanity is likely in the top 100 (and the other 99 will be modified by us to adapt to Mars)
 
El_Machinae said:
King Flev: I feel for you, because you're not really getting a fair shake. If you look at nature as a balanced ecosphere, then humans don't seem to fit into it. Up close, however, it really does look like nature is not balanced but a constant aggressive stuggle to dominate. In that way, we're very natural, just very good at it.

Nature does not seem to contrain us as much as it does other animals, because we adapt our environments so easily.

hear hear :goodjob: 'Balance' certainly doesn't mean peace....

If we ask which species will adapt to Mars the fastest, I'd have to say that humanity is likely in the top 100 (and the other 99 will be modified by us to adapt to Mars)

Uless the bacteria on our rovers are already spreading there now :eek:
 
El_Machinae said:
If we ask which species will adapt to Mars the fastest, I'd have to say that humanity is likely in the top 100 (and the other 99 will be modified by us to adapt to Mars)
I'm not so sure. Humanity doesn't adapt easily to a new environment. We adapt our environment to us.
 
Back
Top Bottom