The Most Egotistical Creature in The World

[Lisa!]

Why do humans think everything belongs to them? I think a lot about humans and other creatures and it seems that humans are the most useless creature for the other creatures. For sure the ability of thinking cause they invent lots of things and know the world better. But humans inventions and science aren't useful for other creatures a lot. And somehow they cause lots of problems for the environmemt and other creatures. Somehow we're making the world impossible to live for every creature.

What does give them the right to use animals for doing researches on them? Most of us may answer "We have touse them in order to save humans' lives"! But who said humans' lives are more important than animals! Just because they can't protest about that, we have the right to do everything we want!

For sure I'm not going to tell you humans and other creatures should be equal! You know I'm going to get some conclusion from this discussion. But first of all I want to get your ideas about that.

Are humans' lives more important than other creatures? Why?

PS: I'm not saying these because I prefer animals to some humans!

 

[wolram]

I think i prefer animals to some humans, some humans are
pure evil and don't deserve to exist, we would shoot a rabid dog without
a thought, but a rabid human has rights

But then there are humans that are just so nice

 

[loseyourname]

It seems primarily a tradition of western civilization to think the Earth belongs to us humans. It likely descends from the Abrahamic religious tradition, wherein the book of Genesis tells us that God gave man dominion over the Earth and all its creatures. Not all civilizations thought this way. At least the Native American tradition that I partially grew up in teaches that we belong to the earth, and not the other way around. According to this tradition, we should honor and live in harmony with our environment, not 'tame' and claim dominion over it.

 

[Pengwuino]

To us, yes, our lives are more important then other creatures. To cats, cats are more important then other creatures. To *insert animal*, *insert same animal* are more important then other creatures.

In some ways, we're actually less "egotistical" then other animals. Some animals will kill anything that looks yummy and spread their "territory" rather aggressively. If humans want to expand out somewhere or do something, oh well hey we need to go through all of societies rules and regulations and governmental instruments. At times we also put animals above human comforts (closing down various factories because a beetle is threatened). We're really doing what all creatures do and although we do some things that are beyond "natural" (like testing on animals), we also do things where we practically bow-down to animals (such as closing down our buildings or constructing habbitats for animals that can't survive on their own).

So if you think about it, we're all pretty much on par for how we and other animals act.

 

[Lisa!]

It seems primarily a tradition of western civilization to think the Earth belongs to us humans. It likely descends from the Abrahamic religious tradition, wherein the book of Genesis tells us that God gave man dominion over the Earth and all its creatures. Not all civilizations thought this way. At least the Native American tradition that I partially grew up in teaches that we belong to the earth, and not the other way around. According to this tradition, we should honor and live in harmony with our environment, not 'tame' and claim dominion over it.

Do we really honor the earth? And I think what are we donig on the earth, shows that we're claiming dominion over it. If we're worried about environment, that's because we think it would be impossible for humans to continue living on the Earth 1 day! And we usually don't think about other creatures. Perhaps if we would be able to live on another planet, we forget all about the Earth and environment!

 

[Entropy]

Why do humans think everything belongs to them?

Well, if you want the religious reason, God gave man dominion over all the earth. Meaning man is dominate over all other creatures and has the right and ablility to cultivate the Earth to his liking. But God also said he will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth. So it comes with responsablility and consquences. This is basically my stand point on the issue. Don't know if most Christians take note of the last part though.

humans are the most useless creature for the other creatures.

Doesn't matter because those creatures aren't important.

Not really, because of humans species like cows, chickens, dogs, cats, etc are far more successful because of humans. They are far more likely to survive because they taste good or are cute and furry.

Not to mention that if a huge asteriod ever comes our way, we'll be the only species that has a chance of stopping it from killing trillions of animals.

What does give them the right to use animals for doing researches on them?

What gives animals the right to live?

 

[russ_watters]

By all means, ask a lion or a shark if it values your life - but do keep your distance.

 

[Lisa!]

By all means, ask a lion or a shark if it values your life - but do keep your distance.

Forget about shark or loin.



Do you value my life as a human, russ? I really want to know if humans value each other's lives!

 

[Nylex]

One of my house"mates" this year was seriously up himself.

 

[wolram]

Do you value my life !

I have £15, 56p, my fossil collection, still, stamp collection and a book, if that's
not enough i can get a night job
Humans are priceless even the one's that aren't the full shilling

 

[Lisa!]

I have £15, 56p, my fossil collection, still, stamp collection and a book, if that's
not enough i can get a night job
Humans are priceless even the one's that aren't the full shilling

Sorry Sir. But I think it's aserious issue.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Are humans' lives more important than other creatures? Why?

I'll remember this question next time I am driving down the road and I have the choice of hitting a deer in the middle of the road or a human (you perhaps) walking along the side.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Good question Lisa! The answer is that no species is anymore entitled to be here than any other. Some humans believe otherwise, just because we're at the top of the food chain. Humans follow the laws of nature and survival just like any other creature. Some humans believe that humans are the only "animals" (hell some people don't even think humans could be "animal") that have souls! Ridiculous! It's all egotism, a trait basically exclusive to humanity, who has branched off of the strict focus of survival.

In some ways, we're actually less "egotistical" then other animals. Some animals will kill anything that looks yummy and spread their "territory" rather aggressively. If humans want to expand out somewhere or do something, oh well hey we need to go through all of societies rules and regulations and governmental instruments. At times we also put animals above human comforts (closing down various factories because a beetle is threatened). We're really doing what all creatures do and although we do some things that are beyond "natural" (like testing on animals), we also do things where we practically bow-down to animals (such as closing down our buildings or constructing habbitats for animals that can't survive on their own).

Baloney! Animals like sharks or lions or what have you do what they do with the intention of SURVIVAL. Plain and simple. Humans are the only animals that will kill another species for fun, for a test or for a fassion statement! And those endangered species we try to save, they are endangered from humans! Otherwise why are we interfering with the course of nature?

Averagesupernova:

You should hit the deer and not the human. The reason is that killing a human would be quite the crime, whereas the authorities could care less if you hit the deer! That's the reason, and it's based on laws created by HUMANS! That does not mean it would be more unethical to hit the person (I think they would be equal).

 

[JamesU]

or you could hit lisa! and the deer and reduce the impact by 1/2 on both of them...

edit-wow this is a mean post.

 

[russ_watters]

Forget about shark or loin.



Do you value my life as a human, russ? I really want to know if humans value each other's lives!

Yes. To an animal, a human is just another animal. To other humans, we're different.

 

[russ_watters]

or you could hit lisa! and the deer and reduce the impact by 1/2 on both of them...

No, sorry, hitting both would have little effect on the impact energy of hitting either.

 

[brewnog]

Humans are the only animals that will kill another species for fun, for a test or for a fassion statement!

Have you ever seen a chicken coup after the fox has paid a visit?

 

[loseyourname]

By all means, ask a lion or a shark if it values your life - but do keep your distance.

They contribute positively to their ecosystems, which doesn't just mean keeping other animals alive. Life requires death. When lions and sharks kill, they are still contributing positively to their ecosystems. You can't say the same for humans. Since the industrial revolution, humans have decimated ecosystems across the planet. Respecting life means more than keeping individual organisms alive. It means keeping intact the cycles and systems that sustain life, cycles and systems that have evolved into careful equilibrium over hundreds of millions of years. Humans have a tendency to disrupt that equilibrium. I'm not saying other animals are any more virtuous - if they had the means as we do, chances are they'd be plundering and overusing resources too. What I am saying is that there are things more important than virtue. Whether biodiversity is sustained on this planet through accident or intent doesn't matter quite so much as that it is simply sustained.

 

[loseyourname]

Humans are the only animals that will kill another species for fun, for a test or for a fassion statement.

Chimpanzees play around with and sometimes torture colobus monkeys before killing them for food. They also go on raiding parties looking for other chimpanzees that aren't part of their tribe. When they find one alone and vulnerable, they beat it and torture it, sometimes biting off its testicles and tearing the flesh from its bones, before finally murdering it. They'll continue doing this in systematic fashion until every member of an opposing tribe is wiped out.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

or you could hit lisa! and the deer and reduce the impact by 1/2 on both of them...

NICE! HAHAHAHA

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Have you ever seen a chicken coup after the fox has paid a visit?

Yeah the fox would be quite full! He got a good meal right? Does this contradict the laws of nature or something?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Chimpanzees play around with and sometimes torture colobus monkeys before killing them for food. They also go on raiding parties looking for other chimpanzees that aren't part of their tribe. When they find one alone and vulnerable, they beat it and torture it, sometimes biting off its testicles and tearing the flesh from its bones, before finally murdering it. They'll continue doing this in systematic fashion until every member of an opposing tribe is wiped out.

Why do they do that?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Killing members of an oppositte tribe is trying to gain a genetic advantage in an ecosystem which isn't contradictory to the laws of nature. Yeah cats may play with a mouse before they kill it too. But they eat it when they kill it. Have you seen another species kill something, tear off it's head, stuff it, place it on their mantle and not eat any of the flesh at all?

 

[brewnog]

Yeah the fox would be quite full! He got a good meal right? Does this contradict the laws of nature or something?

A fox will kill all the chickens in a coup, usually taking just one for food, sometimes taking none at all. It just leaves them all dead. If the fox was doing it just for food, he'd only kill enough to feed him, thus ensuring a future supply of living chickens.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Did they do an experiment or somethin? I guess I have to take your word for it good point brewnog.

 

[brewnog]

Did they do an experiment or somethin? I guess I have to take your word for it good point brewnog.

Okayy. I just did a bit of research, what I told you was a bit of a myth perpetrated by the pro-foxhunting lot. It seems that some believe that foxes will try and cache food for a rainy day.

Google "foxes kill for fun" for many references arguing against my claim!

Sorry about that.

 

[Hurkyl]

They contribute positively to their ecosystems, which doesn't just mean keeping other animals alive. Life requires death. When lions and sharks kill, they are still contributing positively to their ecosystems. You can't say the same for humans. Since the industrial revolution, humans have decimated ecosystems across the planet. Respecting life means more than keeping individual organisms alive.

Don't forget that the oxygen that is so important to many forms of life these days was once a poison -- the life forms that first began releasing oxygen into the air did a bigger number on the environment than humans have managed to do thus far.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Yeah but these are the results. The global community evolves just as individual organisms do so Hurkyl god/nature intended this step or allowed for it to a point where we are at today but good point.

 

[Hurkyl]

It dawns on me that there are other examples: huge columns of ants, or locusts, can leave devestation in their wake (I don't know what they actually leave behind, I suppose).

The evolution of tall trees forming a thick canopy probably destroyed the ecosystem that predated the rain forests (but much more slowly, I suppose).


And I'm not entirely convinced that humans give "nothing back": doesn't urban sprawl benefit various rodents and insects? And while we've destroyed some species, we've certainly helped others thrive. (Take kudzu, for example!)

 

[Mental Gridlock]

It dawns on me that there are other examples: huge columns of ants, or locusts, can leave devestation in their wake (I don't know what they actually leave behind, I suppose).

This is the same as naturally occurring wildfires. Destruction, like death, is a natural part of life and evolving ecosystems. The locusts have their natural purpose and it happens for a reason.

The evolution of tall trees forming a thick canopy probably destroyed the ecosystem that predated the rain forests (but much more slowly, I suppose).

This is an example of competition, also a natural occurrence. One tree tries to grow taller than another tree, so they get the sunlight. Eat shade you bastards! Nothing unnatural about that.

And I'm not entirely convinced that humans give "nothing back": doesn't urban sprawl benefit various rodents and insects? And while we've destroyed some species, we've certainly helped others thrive. (Take kudzu, for example!)

Kudzu is just like killer bees (african honeybees crossbread with euro-bees) as a species that is in an environment that it wasn't supposed to be in or an initial part of but it is there thanks to HUMANS.

If our cities help the rats survive, I don't believe this is natural. Perhaps a consequence of humanity growing which I don't deny exists, but that doesn't mean it's benificial to the global community, (like Earth actually needed these damn rats).