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 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!

 

[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 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.

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).

 

[Mental Gridlock]

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?

 

[Lisa!]

I'll remmember...

I told you I didn't mean animals' lives are more important than humans.
I just want to get some conclusions by this discussion.

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?

 

[Diencephalon]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

The thing is, they don't do it to gain reproductive access. They kill the females, too. They're basically perpetrating genocide. Oftentimes, they don't even move onto the land they just cleared of the other tribe. They don't need to because the land they already have sustains them fine. They don't even seem to be fighting for resources, either material or reproductive. They just kill whoever isn't part of their group because they aren't part of their group. In addition, they seem to genuinely enjoy doing it. They revel in inflicting pain and torturing others of their own species, and they don't eat them after killing them. They simply leave them to rot.

Just to give you an idea of where human violence came from. These are our closest relatives. At some point, I'm sure their behavior made evolutionary sense. There may even still be some kind of logic to it that is simply hard to see. But these animals are brutal. They beat their women for no apparent reason and the men form coalitions to assassinate their leaders. When Thomas Hobbes described his 'state of nature,' he was basically describing the life of a chimpanzee. Somewhere along the line, nature got a little out of hand, and humans are the culmination of that. Thankfully, unlike chimpanzees, humans do have moral sentiments, and organize into civilizations that are mostly peaceful. Even though it is estimated that there have only been 23 years in recorded human history during which there were no known wars taking place, the wars that do take place do not involve most people. The average human lives an entire life without killing or seriously injuring somebody. Still, lurking beneath the surface is a genetic code not so far off from that of a chimpanzee, a genetic code that predisposes us to violent conflict resolution, a genetic code that causes many of us to enjoy violence, to be thrilled by it and revel in it.

 

[Smasherman]

loseyourname, have you ever read the book Ishmael? It talks about "civilized" humans conquering the earth, and how that's directly contradictory to nature. For instance, when a predator kills its prey, afterwards the predator and other prey will still drink from the same water source. With "civilized" humans, we'd kill the predator, as well as any other predators that would threaten us. "Civilized" humans have been trying to conquer the planet for about 10,000 years, and so far all we've done is created more humans and threatened the global ecosystem.

Humans not considered civilized by our standards, however, haven't caused so many problems. According to Ishmael, prehistoric humans lived fairly well. Their only real enemy was humans and climate problems, as from a drought. When some humans began farming, their path altered. Instead of living off the land or using limited agriculture, humans began increasing their farmland. This required the clearing of trees, killing of crop- and cattle-eaters, and the decimation of humans in other useful areas.

This path, the path of "civilization", brings excellent short-term results and long-term destruction. This knowledge is even a part of Judaism (and thus Christianity and Islam), but it is misunderstood (someone said this in this thread already). Since the short-term results were so good, those practicing this new form of society expanded greatly, far outshadowing those of the old way.

A modern example: Companies clear-cut huge forests for lumber and farmland, leaving us with more polluted air, less oxygen, and decimated ecosystems. The price of the lumber is based on the cost to cut down the trees, process them, and ship them. The cost of replanting them is ignored (so no money is used to replant them).

I'm not saying that civilization is bad; I consider a wonderful thing. I just hope we create a civilized one before our current brand causes a new wave of extinction. If this process is repeated, however, the Sun might be gone before life spreads throughout the galaxy (assuming humans are the only lifeforms capable of space flight in the galaxy, that is).

 

[Entropy]

Yeah cats may play with a mouse before they kill it too. But they eat it when they kill it.

My cat kills stuff all the time and doesn't eat anything. You should see all the dead lizards and frogs that my cat has played with then forgot about. There was this one cat up in Ireland who killing 200+ birds a day just for the thrill of killing them. You'd wall through the woods and there would just be dead birds laying everywhere.

For instance, when a predator kills its prey, afterwards the predator and other prey will still drink from the same water source.

Probably because the prey, unlike people, doesn't have the choice or ablility to drink somewhere else or kill the predator. If prey could help it, you think it would allow itself to be eaten? Even if the predator was on the brink of extinction, you think the prey would let itself be eaten because it's the "natural" order of things? Bull, countless species have become extinct because they couldn't compete. And it's not like species haven't caused mass extinctions in the past. What do you think happened when photosynthetic bacteria first arrived on Earth? You think the "force of nature" told them to stop making oxygen so they wouldn't kill themselve's and millions of other species? Wrong.

prehistoric humans lived fairly well

So well that most humans didn't live over 30 and the human race was brought to the brink of extinction (hint: read up on the population bottle neck that occurred in prehistory, it supported by the fact that our midicondrial (sp?) DNA is very similar to one another's).

 

[Mk]

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

I think humans are more important that dogs. And there is a lot of thought, in the US a few years ago there were many influential court trials about rabid dogs, pit bulls especially, and whether they should be put down or not.

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.

We are currently the dominant species on planet Earth, and uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones, it is a law of nature.

Do we really honor the earth?

You call it honor like the Earth is an equal to us, a living being that has feelings and a personality. But if you want to say honor sure! I think we honor the Earth quite a bit. I suggest you read another post of mine at https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=696783&postcount=41 (from my 5th paragraph and on)

And I think what are we donig on the earth, shows that we're claiming dominion over it.

What are the specific things that we are doing that you think shows that we "claim dominance?"

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 are not worried about the environment because we think its impossible the Earth could last after us. We are worried so we can last, and the Earth can last.

And we usually don't think about other creatures.

We think about other creatures all the time! Just look at all the preservation efforts we made, I used Yellowstone as a good example in my link. In fact, we may be thinking too much about other species. The efforts we make seem to backfire a lot.

Perhaps if we would be able to live on another planet, we forget all about the Earth and environment!

The Earth is making strong efforts to find other life in the solar system and galaxy. Humans are even thinking about Earths that we don't know anything about.

What gives animals the right to live?

Nice question Entropy! What gives any of use the right to live? Is there a right to live?

Forget about shark or loin.

What!? I like my loins!

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

So behind all this you just want to know if humans like each other?

Of course like wolram said, some people are completely evil awful, and shouldn't be allowed to live. I remember seeing on the news that a man had raped a child, then set him on fire. He was on the news because he had recently murdered a brother and sister. I think he also killed a number of other people.

I thought, if I saw that person on the street, and I had a concealed weapon - a pistol, would I shoot him? The pros are that he's dead and I helped society, the cons are that I'm going to jail for a few years. I'm a nice guy and all, is it worth it? If I decided I would, should I start a fight with him, to decrease my jail time? Maybe I'd just make him remember my message to him. Of course he is insane and immune to retributive and restoritive justice. He's been through them many times and comes out the same errr... guy. How would I feel if I let him go?

Good question Lisa! The answer is that no species is anymore entitled to be here than any other.

Wow you seem really smart! You seem like you know a lot about this. You seem like you are right end of discussion.

What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?

What about the protozoan Malaria parasite, Plasmodium?
Polio?
Smallpox?
Anthrax?
The hundreds of species of ticks?
Bacterium causing Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi?
Bacterium causing Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Rickettsia rickettsii?

I think the world did just fine without polio and smallpox. Maybe we should annihilate a few more of these?

Even terrorists, a generalized group of people, its not quite black and white, but undoubtably gray. The radicals, namely Islamic terrorists, wake up every day and think "How can I hurt people today?"

And those endangered species we try to save, they are endangered from humans! Otherwise why are we interfering with the course of nature?

Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many other creatures. Are they interferring with nature?

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).

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

You have the choice of either personally pushing
A) A deer
or
B) A man
off of the observation deck of the Empire State Building, about 1,300 feet above the ground, to fall to his death. You will be given 1,000,000 USD after finishing the deed. Can you, Mental Gridlock, honestly say that you would think more than a second about whether to murder the deer or the man? I really hope not. And I really hope there is not any person in the world that would think about which one to push.

 

[loseyourname]

We are currently the dominant species on planet Earth, and uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones, it is a law of nature.

I'd hardly call it a law, unless you just mean that some species will always succumb by competing with more fit species. That isn't really the point, though. Sure, species that compete with us are going to go extinct because we're dominant. You know who that happened to? Neanderthals. What other species has ever been a direct competitor with homo sapiens? None; it's just that we spread too wide too fast and consume too many resources too quickly, before ecosystems have a chance to adjust. This isn't about the killing off of any particular species. It's about the way we've negatively impacted an entire biosphere. Losing all this biodiversity will come back to haunt us.

 

[Mk]

We are currently the dominant species on planet Earth, and uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones, it is a law of nature.

I'd hardly call it a law, unless you just mean that some species will always succumb by competing with more fit species.

uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones

I didn't say all, I said it happens.

We spread too wide too fast and consume too many resources too quickly, before ecosystems have a chance to adjust. This isn't about the killing off of any particular species. It's about the way we've negatively impacted an entire biosphere. Losing all this biodiversity will come back to haunt us.

I object, but don't have enough time right now to back it up. All I can say is this: Humans aren't the only ones that don't allow other species to gain, in the superior species, region of territory. Look up slow-growth forests for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-growth_forest should be enough.

 

[loseyourname]

I object, but don't have enough time right now to back it up. All I can say is this: Humans aren't the only ones that don't allow other species to gain, in the superior species, region of territory. Look up slow-growth forests for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-growth_forest should be enough.

MK, slow growth forests don't cover the planet in a matter of several hundred years and choke off resources everywhere. The fact is, humans have no natural competitors. They simply consume too much without giving off very many useful waste products. Even the useful waste products we do give off - like carbon dioxide - we give off too much of, far more than any ecosystem requires, throwing the system out of equilibrium more quickly than it can recover from. The only other thing that does that is a mass extinction or large natural disaster.

 

[Archon]

Wow you seem really smart! You seem like you know a lot about this. You seem like you are right end of discussion.

What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?

What about the protozoan Malaria parasite, Plasmodium?
Polio?
Smallpox?
Anthrax?
The hundreds of species of ticks?
Bacterium causing Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi?
Bacterium causing Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Rickettsia rickettsii?

I think the world did just fine without polio and smallpox. Maybe we should annihilate a few more of these?

Even terrorists, a generalized group of people, its not quite black and white, but undoubtably gray. The radicals, namely Islamic terrorists, wake up every day and think "How can I hurt people today?"

So in your opinion, certain bacteria don't have a right to exist simply because they kill large numbers of humans. This brings us back to the point: why do humans have any more right to be alive than animals? Why is it ok for a human to exterminate a species of animal, but not for bacteria to kill a few thousand/million humans?

Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many other creatures. Are they interferring with nature?

No, but that's exactly the point: these are purely natural processes, and have purely natural implications. Other animals and plants must adapt to their new environments, but this takes time. Termites, Beavers, and coral reafs don't usually spread across vast areas before other species of animals are able to adapt to their presence: the same is not true of humans. Termites, Beavers, and Coral Reefs don't exterminate millions of species of animals or radically alter the global environment. Perhaps most important of all, none of these creatures have the ability to protect "their" planet and fellow animals from destruction.
By analogy: death is a necessary part of keeping the human population at levels which resources can support. The Holocaust was not.

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

You have the choice of either personally pushing
A) A deer
or
B) A man
off of the observation deck of the Empire State Building, about 1,300 feet above the ground, to fall to his death. You will be given 1,000,000 USD after finishing the deed. Can you, Mental Gridlock, honestly say that you would think more than a second about whether to murder the deer or the man? I really hope not. And I really hope there is not any person in the world that would think about which one to push.

Even if you disagree with this idea, the response to the scenario you describe need be no different than the original response: you push the deer because pushing the human would have legal consequences. Nowhere in the post you cited do I see the implication that the poster would push the human rather than the deer. So what's your point?

 

[Lisa!]

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

You have the choice of either personally pushing
A) A deer
or
B) A man

You'de better to say:
A)A deer
or
B)A dear

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I think humans are more important that dogs...What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?.

Mk, why should I believe YOU?! You say humans are better than dogs. I say no. What's your point? In reality I won't push the human off the building because then I go to jail or executed! But that doesn't mean without that construct of society imposed I would care either way pushing a homo sapein or a deer off the roof that's my value that they are the same so what's your point? I never said anything about smallpox, polio aids etc. as not having a legitimate purpose. If you didn't jump to the conclusion about something I didn't even talk about I can tell you nature has a purpose for these entities, e.g. population control (like AIDS in Africa for instance). I just say maybe homo-sapiens go beyond nature's intended purpose.

thanks for the unsolicited lecture, but I know how evolution works. I believe God/nature puts every species here for a reason and most don't make the cut, but those that do survive do what they do for survival (mostly, I must bow for the sadistic chimps)for survival but humanity may be going way beyond their intended purpose with major global ramifications, and if that's such an alien point of view you can't fathom this then don't waste your time.

What are the specific things that we are doing that you think shows that we "claim dominance?"

You can't be THIS naive? (I'll get into examples like deforestation if you need me to.)

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks. I wonder what gives you THAT impression but I believe species are EQUAL.

 

[JamesU]

Wow you seem really smart! You seem like you know a lot about this. You seem like you are right end of discussion.

What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?

What about the protozoan Malaria parasite, Plasmodium?
Polio?
Smallpox?
Anthrax?
The hundreds of species of ticks?
Bacterium causing Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi?
Bacterium causing Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Rickettsia rickettsii?

I think the world did just fine without polio and smallpox. Maybe we should annihilate a few more of these?

Bacteria have no intent to harm humans. and any other animal couldn't care less if humans were gone or not. the only reason people value humans over animals is because they themselves are humans. (except for those idiots at PETA) if dogs would could think like we do, they'd think about hunting people, and things of that nature.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

yeah Archon you said the same thing while I was typing my post you're right I wasted like 15 min. makin that post and you had it covered! HAHAHA I just woulda wasted the time anyway...

 

[Skyhunter]

How very interesting.

It seems to me that the whole history and evolution of this planet has culminated in humans like myself. Rather than ask whether animals are more, less, or equal, we should ask...

What is our purpose here?

or more specifically

What is my purpose here?

Humans are unique in their ability to think abstractly and manifest those thought by manipulating the world around them. With this great power comes a great responsibility. With nuclear weapons we can destroy most life on this planet. Even without them we are causing one of the greatest mass extinctions in history.

To me the answer is obvious. Humans have no more right to live than any other life form. However because we can think and foresee the consequences of our actions we have an obligation to act in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the destructive consequences of our actions.

We have evolved a large brain. We should use it for other than self gratification, otherwise the next species to reach this level will wonder at why such an intelligent and technologically advanced species destroyed it's environment, thereby bringing about it's own extinction.

The reason humans in modern western culture are so devastating to the environment is because we have been trained to consume and discard without thought for the impact on the environment, other species, or even our own bodies.

I grew up with cigarette ads on my television that were cartoons. Predictably I started smoking when I was 13 years old. Even though they knew it was harmful to smoke, the tobacco companies marketed cigarettes to me and my government allowed it. I smoked for 20 years, I spent 16 of the 20 years quitting. Now I am healthier, I am not polluting the environment I share with my children, and others, and I don't generate extra garbage in the form of filters and cellophane.

This is just a personal example of how I have used my natural intelligence to overcome the social training and chemical addiction that was perpetrated on me as an impressionable child. We all need to start excercising that muscle between our ears to overcome the incessant propaganda in the form of advertising to make our own decisions and reflect on what is really important!

 

[JamesU]

well said.

 

[Skyhunter]

Bacteria have no intent to harm humans. and any other animal couldn't care less if humans were gone or not. the only reason people value humans over animals is because they themselves are humans. (except for those idiots at PETA) if dogs would could think like we do, they'd think about hunting people, and things of that nature.

Could you be more specific?

Most people fall into a norm for intelligence, and are considered "average". A minority are considered "above average" or "genius", and "below average" or "idiot".

Could you site an example of a spokesperson for PETA that falls into the "below average" category?