The Most Egotistical Creature in The World!

  • Thread starter Lisa!
  • Start date
  • #1
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
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 alot. 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!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
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 :yuck:

But then there are humans that are just so nice :biggrin:
 
  • #3
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
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.
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
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.
 
  • #5
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
loseyourname said:
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!
 
  • #6
Entropy
478
0
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 basicly 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. :tongue:

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. :biggrin:

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?
 
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
By all means, ask a lion or a shark if it values your life - but do keep your distance. :wink:
 
  • #8
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
russ_watters said:
By all means, ask a lion or a shark if it values your life - but do keep your distance. :wink:
Forget about shark or loin.



Do you value my life as a human, russ? :wink: I really want to know if humans value each other's lives!
 
  • #9
Nylex
552
2
One of my house"mates" this year was seriously up himself.
 
  • #10
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
Lisa! said:
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 :biggrin:
Humans are priceless even the one's that aren't the full shilling :biggrin:
 
  • #11
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
Mr wolram said:
I have £15, 56p, my fossil collection, still, stamp collection and a book, if that's
not enough i can get a night job :biggrin:
Humans are priceless even the one's that aren't the full shilling :biggrin:
Sorry Sir. But I think it's aserious issue.
 
  • #12
Averagesupernova
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,166
1,008
Lisa! said:
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.
 
  • #13
Mental Gridlock
16
0
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.

Pengwuino said:
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).
 
  • #14
JamesU
Gold Member
805
3
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Lisa! said:
Forget about shark or loin.



Do you value my life as a human, russ? :wink: 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.
 
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
yomamma said:
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.
 
  • #17
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,739
7
Mental Gridlock said:
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?
 
  • #18
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
russ_watters said:
By all means, ask a lion or a shark if it values your life - but do keep your distance. :wink:

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.
 
  • #19
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
Mental Gridlock said:
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.
 
  • #20
Mental Gridlock
16
0
yomamma said:
or you could hit lisa! and the deer and reduce the impact by 1/2 on both of them...

NICE! HAHAHAHA
 
  • #21
Mental Gridlock
16
0
brewnog said:
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?
 
  • #22
Mental Gridlock
16
0
loseyourname said:
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?
 
  • #23
Mental Gridlock
16
0
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?
 
  • #24
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,739
7
Mental Gridlock said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Mental Gridlock
16
0
Did they do an experiment or somethin? I guess I have to take your word for it good point brewnog.
 
  • #26
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,739
7
Mental Gridlock said:
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.
 
  • #27
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
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. :biggrin:
 
  • #28
Mental Gridlock
16
0
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.
 
  • #29
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
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!)
 
  • #30
Mental Gridlock
16
0
Hurkyl said:
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.

Hurkyl said:
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.

Hurkyl said:
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).
 
  • #31
Mental Gridlock
16
0
I just think I contradicted myself. If all this destruction is part of nature then humans fit right in! HHAAHHAHAHA. Good point Hurkyl. So humans are like locusts (but worse). I wonder if that's how nature intended?
 
  • #32
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
Averagesupernova said:
I'll remmember...
:uhh: I told you I didn't mean animals' lives are more important than humans.
I just want to get some conclusions by this discussion.

russ_watters said:
Yes. To an animal, a human is just another animal. To other humans, we're different.
Ok. But for sure you prefer your life to me. That's not strange. What do you do if my death could have some benefits for you?
 
  • #33
Diencephalon
9
0
Lisa! said:
Ok. But for sure you prefer your life to me. That's not strange. What do you do if my death could have some benefits for you?

-sharpens knife-

ohhh...nothing. :biggrin:
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Lisa! said:
Ok. But for sure you prefer your life to me. That's not strange. What do you do if my death could have some benefits for you?
You'll have to be more specific than that.
 
  • #35
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
Hurkyl said:
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).

That's the big thing, really. No species can devastate such large areas so quickly, before the environment has any ability to adapt. When you throw a system out of equilibrium in small steps, it has a chance to reestablish equilibrium. No other species is capable of disrupting equilibrium on a global scale, either, simply because no other species is capable of inhabiting the entire globe. Even the first oxygen-releasing microbes you refer to were millions of species, not one.

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 almost as bad as humans. Same thing with the mussels that we've transplanted into the great lakes. Introducing foreign species where they don't belong is one of the worst things humans do. It might benefit one species, but it destroys the ecosystem itself, greatly reducing biodiversity, which is really the point. Every species that disappears is genetic material gone that may never be retrieved. Every plant that goes extinct could have held the cure for cancer, AIDS, could have produced better quality clothing, could have been cross-bred for better food stuffs, whatever.

Don't even get me started on urban sprawl. The two fastest growing big cities over the last decade in the US were Phoenix and Las Vegas. They, along with Los Angeles, all draw the bulk of their water from the Colorado River. The water supply is not limitless, so what happens? The river is rerouted everywhere, disrupting local aquatic systems. Los Angeles pumps water down from the Sierras, turning the farmland there into a wasteland. Central California, the major source of citrus fruit and beef for most of the country, can no longer afford to irrigate their crops properly. Urban sprawl in Los Angeles has people building deep into the chapparal, a biome that requires periodic fires to stay healthy. What happens? These fires that would otherwise be limited become periodic wildfires, spreading across suburbs because people thought living in fire country would be a good idea for some reason. People also build up and down the coastlines, eliminating all of the wetlands from California. Farmland is pushed into the desert, and irrigation runoff eutrophicates the Salton Sea, killing off the fish. Since the wetlands are now gone, the 200 or so species of birds that migrate south through California each year have nowhere to stop and feed but the Salton Sea. When the fish are gone, the birds will follow.

Nonetheless, the people keep coming. They spread far and wide into desert basins that have little to no natural resources to sustain such a large population. So they continue to take from elsewhere, continuuing the tax the farmland in the relatively fertile valleys and devastate the scant natural havens left for the few wild species that still manage to somehow thrive. You know the best thing that an environmentally conscious southern Californian can do (maybe Patty is listening here)? Leave. Move away. As nice as it is there, I was glad as hell to take off when I got the chance.
 

Suggested for: The Most Egotistical Creature in The World!

Replies
13
Views
824
Replies
0
Views
87
Replies
20
Views
426
Replies
32
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
575
Replies
1
Views
265
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
654
Replies
4
Views
331
Replies
50
Views
723
Replies
10
Views
407
Top