Is Anthropocentrism Justified?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
The only reason anthropecentric nonsense can be spouted about it because no other animal has evolved an ego.

And an ego makes us superior?!? LOL, it remind me of Douglas Adams and the dolphins.

 

[hypnagogue]

There's nothing egocentric about the statement "humans are superior to most animals when it comes to adapting to new niches." This is not some delusion of grandeur; it's simply a fact, just as it is a fact that copper is superior to wood when it comes to conducting electricity. Note that I did not claim that humans are superior to all animals, in a general sense.

I could equally well state that "birds are superior to humans when it comes to non-technologically aided flight." This too is a fact. There's nothing wrong with saying animal A is superior to animal B, so long as you qualify the statement by saying "but only when it comes to X," where X is a specific set of objective criteria. We get into trouble when we mean "superior" to be some kind of all encompassing superiority, or likewise when we conclude superiority in some kind of subjective sense involving value judgments.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
There's nothing egocentric about the statement "humans are superior to most animals when it comes to adapting to new niches." This is not some delusion of grandeur; it's simply a fact, just as it is a fact that copper is superior to wood when it comes to conducting electricity. Note that I did not claim that humans are superior to all animals, in a general sense.

I could equally well state that "birds are superior to humans when it comes to non-technologically aided flight." This too is a fact. There's nothing wrong with saying animal A is superior to animal B, so long as you qualify the statement by saying "but only when it comes to X," where X is a specific set of objective criteria. We get into trouble when we mean "superior" to be some kind of all encompassing superiority, or likewise when we conclude superiority in some kind of subjective sense involving value judgments.

When you add the quailfiers, you put yourself on relatively solid ground. Bravo!

 

[Royce]

As far as successfully filling variable niches is concerned I think that bacteria have it made compared to us. they fill niches where we can't even get to as in rocks thousands of feet below ground level.
By another criteria, worms and insects are far more numerous and far moe varied than humans. So which species is the most successful in evolutionary terms? It depends on the criteria that you use.
Humans are generalist and far more adaptable than a number of other species but far less than others. The point however is that all life on Earth is interdependent and very few species but the most basic could survive without the rest of life supporting it. The food chain is just one example of interdependency. Then there are such things a s the water cycle and the carbon cycle that makes life itself dependant on the geological properties of the Earth itself. Makes one begin to think that Gaia might be real after all. All of life on Earth is basically one life form and interdependent on all of life to exist.
It is true the humans change their local environment to better fit themselves and promote the growth and survival of various plants and animal forms that benefit mankind over those that we have no use for; but, who is using who?
We cannot, I think, pick out one species or one group and say that they are the best or most advanced because one species or group or family or whatever cannot survive without all of the rest of life to support it.
It would be like trying to decide what one thing it is that makes the soup or gumbo so good when it is the particular compination of ingredients compined and cooked in that certain way that makes it so good.
Which finger or toe do you like the best, is most vital to your well being, gives you the edge over all the rest of us? Could you, would you do away with all the others because they are "inferior" to the best one?
Is it our egos, our insecurity or our need to justify our actions that make us feel apart and superior to the rest of life? Is it simply human arrogance or is it ignorance?

 

[THANOS]

Hehe, i guess the word superior i used caused quite a stir eh. Well i did say when it comes to ruling humans are superior overall. Hence the other word no one seemed to look at was "ruling". We rule territory more then any other animal. well we kinda live with insects so we may rule them when they crawl on us or our floors but we let them stay outside or hiding in home. We might also have no choice. If an animal goes in our community we will act by creating quite a fuss so the big guys can take'em out for the little guys. Whether or not that animal dies we do make them leave our community. Now that is what i meant by humans are the superior over all animals.

We have claimed the most territory and defended it. Help with technology of course. But it is our technology that helps us defend our territory and we need it to be superior. But if we went in the jungle guess who loses the role of superior?

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is true among large (visible to the human eye) animals, but the greatest biomass around, just about everywhere, is bacteria. And they can live in places we can't. at least so far.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Is it our egos, our insecurity or our need to justify our actions that make us feel apart and superior to the rest of life? Is it simply human arrogance or is it ignorance?

I think it is a natural offshoot of survival instincts, maybe. I am not arrogant, or ignorant about the subject, but if you ask me if a human life is worth more to me than an animal's, I would generally say 'yes'. *shrugs* We are just wired that way, I guess.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
(SNIP)[/color] So, you are just accepting what everyone else tells you, rather than coming to your own conclusions? What do you mean by "do ideals"? Have you been inside the mind of another animal so that you have the authority to make such an assertion? (SNoP)[/color]

In a manner, I have been inside the mind of another animal, but I have certainly noticed that the only 'other' animal minds, that I have any access to, are the human ones, because they can reveal the insides of themselves to the rest of us simply by speaking, or "typiconographic" manerisms.
That one ability places us so far ahead, away, distant, special, superior, on top, first place, the best on the planet, somewhat invincible compared to the rest of the animals, with the only other differences being that we need to find clothing and shelter, the rest of the animals do not, and we have no specialized self defence apendage(s). We are forced/required to use the minds that we have, to survive.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is a natural offshoot of survival instincts, maybe. I am not arrogant, or ignorant about the subject, but if you ask me if a human life is worth more to me than an animal's, I would generally say 'yes'. *shrugs* We are just wired that way, I guess.

As I sit here having a southern fried steak sandwich with potato chips for lunch I can not disagree with you about this. I much prefer being at the top of the food chain rather than lower down.
My point remains, however, that we are a part of nature and life not apart from it. Until we have survived a couple of hundred million years like the dinosaurs I think its a bit premature to call ourselves the ruleres of this planets and highest form of life.
After all humanity may be a short term selfdistructive abbaration in the normal chain of events. As far as life itself is concerned we are pretty much the new kid on the block and it has yet to be determined whether we are worth keeping around for a while or not.
We may also be nothing more than a transition phase to the REAL superior and ruling being of Earth.
This is what I mean by the arrogance and ignorance of Mankind collectively not necessarily of individuals (though I have met some to whom it would apply).

 

[Zero]

I'm in agreement with you Royce...how cool is that?

 

[Royce]

It is amazing isn't it. Is this a great country,world, universe or what?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP)[/color] After all humanity may be a short term selfdistructive abbaration in the normal chain of events. (SNoP)[/color]

Humm, something NO other animal can do, destroy itself completely, or all of the rest of life. (pretty much)
Oh Ya, also something no other animal SEEKS to do, only us (humans) the intellectual idiots(?).

 

[Royce]

And possibly lemmings if the folk tales are true.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, something NO other animal can do, destroy itself completely, or all of the rest of life. (pretty much)
Oh Ya, also something no other animal SEEKS to do, only us (humans) the intellectual idiots(?).

Ummm...so what? It is still an outgrowth of our animal behavior, not something different from what any other animal would do.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
And possibly lemmings if the folk tales are true.

They are NOT.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...so what? It is still an outgrowth of our animal behavior, not something different from what any other animal would do.

It is "something different" as no other animals do it, as for it being "an outgrowth of our animal behaviour", hows that?

 

[Royce]

Well chimps have wars and raiding parties and kill one another. Of course they are our nearest relatives so I guess that's to be expected.
Insects, ants, wasps, etc, frequenty raid other nests or hives and wipe them out completely. Killing beyond need for food is not exclusive to mankind.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
Well chimps have wars and raiding parties and kill one another. Of course they are our nearest relatives so I guess that's to be expected.
Insects, ants, wasps, etc, frequenty raid other nests or hives and wipe them out completely. Killing beyond need for food is not exclusive to mankind.

So we, humans, must be in the same category inasmuch as we, or I, or you, can sit in a place and wipe out an entire troup of monkeys without even being near them.
It is language that enables us to act out far beyond the rest of the Animals, waaaaaaaay beyond, enables!

 

[Royce]

I think that language has had as much effect onour development as Homo sapiens as anything else. I think language influences the way we think as much as the other way around. It IMHO goes far beyond reading and writing enabling the acummulation and preservation of knowledge from one generation to the next; or, the ability to share thoughts and knowledge via spoken language. I think that it was instrumental in our becoming human and in what humans are.
Rather than being a consequence of being human I think it is at least in part what made us become human and determines what being human means as well as human behavior. It may not be the prime or most important influence but it is right up there among the most important.

Think about it. Did our brains develope speech centers so we could communicate or did rudementary communication cause the speach centers to develope so that we could communicate better. I think most of us have the cart before the horse. speech or language is the cause not the effect or at least as much the cause as the effect. I have said as much in FZ+'s thread.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So we, humans, must be in the same category inasmuch as we, or I, or you, can sit in a place and wipe out an entire troup of monkeys without even being near them.
It is language that enables us to act out far beyond the rest of the Animals, waaaaaaaay beyond, enables!

We get your point, I think. We are having a trouble getting our point across, though. We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
We get your point, I think. We are having a trouble getting our point across, though. We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

Humm, I suspect that I have 'seen that' just that I have this notion that it's impact upon us, and therefore all of what we can, and do, do, is enourmous, and that that differentiates us from the rest of the animals in a manner that appears (simply) subtle but works out over time to be HUGE, sort of like that "little degree of difference" expanding in orders of magnitude what we can accomplish.
Hence (perhaps) just a little (bit) more then is being admitted to...?

 

[selfAdjoint]

We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

Which is just where I get off the train. Langauge alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Put it this way, if it's a difference of degree, how much/high do you rate that degree of 'difference' to be worth?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Put it this way, if it's a difference of degree, how much/high do you rate that degree of 'difference' to be worth?

Not enough to say that humans aren't animals, which we clearly are.

 

[Royce]

Not only that humans are animals also but are a part of nature and of the natural order of life on earth. We are not separate from, apart from or different from nature and the rest of life on earth. We are of nature and nature is part of us. We are all one life form on one planet. In this way we are no different from the rest of the animals nor of life itself. The difference is of degree. A vast degree I agree but any more vast than the difference between an amoeba and a mammal?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Not only that humans are animals also but are a part of nature and of the natural order of life on earth. We are not separate from, apart from or different from nature and the rest of life on earth. We are of nature and nature is part of us. We are all one life form on one planet. In this way we are no different from the rest of the animals nor of life itself. The difference is of degree. A vast degree I agree but any more vast than the difference between an amoeba and a mammal?

And, also, we choose what criteria to judge the differences...the difference in strength between a gorilla and human is tremendous, but we are both primates.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is agreed that we are animals, but we are the most different animal on the planet, and the most adapted/adaptable.

All of what any of you knows is waaaaaay past anything any other animal will ever learn, in it's entire life!

The rest of the animals learn only from the situational circumstances, they learn from the immediacy (sp?) of where they are!

 

[Royce]

Okay we're different, even waaaaaaay different than any other single species; but; you are saying this because of one or two criteria. It it those two things, language and ability to learn outside of the immediate circumstances? I don't agree with the latter by the way. Is it correct to say that both are so interrelated that they are actually one characteristic, language; that language is what makes us human and different from the rest of the animals?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Which is just where I get off the train. Langauge alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

Do you have vidence? We act just like monkeys, boss.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Which is just where I get off the train. Langauge alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

Our linguistic abilities are a function of our superior intelligence combined with our capable vocal chords. Other animals have intelligence, too. Therefore, it is a difference of degree. All language really is is using symbols. Even a dog can recognize a correlation between a symbol and what it's related to or supposed to represent. We give them oral commands, don't we? How is that not a simple version of linguistic abilities?

Even more obvious, as I have already pointed out, gorillas have been taught to use sign language to form sentences. If this is not language, then I'm bewildered as to what language is.

It is a difference of degree.
----------------------------

Also, all the debate about what "separates" us from other animals centers on our abilities that give us tremendous power. If our great power is what justifies calling us superior and doing what we want with others, then the 3rd reich was for a time superior and justified in killing all those millions.