The Animal in All of Us

[Esophagus]

Okay, this is something I've always found to be a big, annoying, issue with both science and religion. It bares the fangs of the entire human race, and the conceit and cocky attitude that lies within. Everyone seems to somehow think we are ABOVE animals. Even evolution, a theory saying that we have grown from them. We ARE animals, guys. Embrace it. We may have grown up into a bigger and better animal, but I wouldn't say we've moved far enough above everything else to consider ourselves wholly different. We're (trying to be) accepting of other races, why can't we learn to accept other species? I'm not saying this like I'm some vegan animal rights activist, because I'm really not. I wouldn't stop a lion from eatting a Zebra, so no ones going to stop me from eatting my cheeseburger. If we come from apes, then someday apes will become us, right? So we've advanced beyond anything the earths, ever seen (that we know of), I don't consider it a big deal. We've also done mroe harm than anything the earth's ever seen. Lets flaunt that in the face of a gorilla, living a completely simplistic lifestyle, with more intelligence than plenty of us would have if we were raised away from society.

Has this ever come to anyone elses mind?

ps
Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. An amaaaaaazing book.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Though we are certainly animals, we are certainly superior ot the other animals simply because our thinking abilities are light years ahead of theirs. Sure, it can be argued that we dont really know their thinking processes, but even so, taking a look at reality, our thinking processes have put us in charge of the world, and that is the reason we are superior- we started with absolutely nothing except the ablity to think in the middle of africa, and turned that into complete world dominance- whether or not this is good or bad for the world as a whole is another issue, but it certainly a compelling argument for our superiority over other animals- we control themm they do not control us, and are much, much dumber than we are (sure, some animal rights activists will say "oh, dolphins are just as smart as humans..." -where'd they learn this? in the labratory where dolphins study humans?) and that is, generallyu speaking, what we consider superior.

[headcase]

We are intellectually superior to animals, there's no arguement there. The problem arises from the definition of "superiority" itself. People assume intellectual superiority makes us the superior species in general.

To consider this, we really have to start and the most basic question. What is the point of life? What are we aiming for? Because surely the species who have come closest to achieveing this aim is by definition the superior species. Right?

For the sake of this arguement, I'll steer clear of spirituality, otherwise we'll be running in circles forever. Forget Jesus, let's talk about Darwin.

Species evolve to survive. They evolve in order to be better suited to pass on their genes to future generations. Anyone watch David Attenborough? If not, you should. I though I had a reasonable grasp of the depth of complexity of the living world, but I was miles off. This man will blow your mind. Imagine a fish with receptors on its back which pick up the light shining from above, so that it can create the same shade on the scales on its belly, making it invisible from below. Imagine another fish who has developed an optical system that can differentiate from natural light and this seeming indentical light. Suffice to say, life is complex.

So how do humanity fare in this race to survival? Quite badly, in my opinion. I always compare the growth of a bacterial colony. Anyone with a basic course in biology will know the five stages. Lag, log, stationary, decline and survival. Let's see how this applies to humanity.

1 - Lag: In bacterial colonies, this is when the bacteria have been introduced. They exist, but have not had time to settle and multiply. These are the basic humans in Africa.

2 - Log: Exponential growth. Bacteria split every half hour. 1-2-4-8-16 etc. This isn't relevant to this discussion but interesting tidbit, after 24 hours, one bacterium cell would have created a colony of almost 300 trillion. This is the humanity up until a few hundred years ago. We spread, grew, inhabited everywhere inhabitable. Happy days. You might say some 3rd world countries are still here.

3 - Stationary: In a bacterial colony, this is when the death rate equals the growth rate. Bacteria are still multiplying, but food and space are running out, and their own toxins are reaching lethal levels. Today, so called "1st world" countries are decreasing in population. In France and Germany, the death rate already exceeds the birth rate. The debate about rescources is argueable (is the oil really running out? Are we running out of water/food? Someone will argue all these points so I won't bother).
On top of this, we have those uniquely human characteristics. Nuclear weapons, oppressive dictators, fanatical terrorists. Some of the developed world is finely balanced at this stage. Once we are joined by India, China and Africa, it might just tip the balance.

4 - Decline: Again with the bacteria. They've advanced themselves to destruction. They've used all their resources while polluting their environment beyond habitation. Death rates vastly exceed growth rates. The colony is doomed.
As for humanity, who knows? Will we run out of resources? Is global warming real? Will we trigger a nuclear winter? When 2nd world (China and India) start swinging at their own weight, will the Western world cope? It's not looking promising.

5 - Survival: When bacteria realise that their environment is uninhabitable, they form endospores. Tough, virtually indestructable cases that contain all the information the bacterium needs to reproduce. It can live like this for hundreds of years until in senses that the time is right and kick off a new colony. In 24 hours, it can have 300 trillion children. Humans cannot form endospores.

[ComfortablyNumb]

You'er right, humans cannot form endospores, however, humans are not bacteria. though the analogy is compelling, it does kinda prematurely make the connection between humans and bacteria. One thing, though, that humans can do and bacteria cannot, is the potential (limited as it may be) to colonize other planets (sure bacteria can jump from host to host, but that only lasts until the hosts either die off or they start fighting the bacteria)- now, whther or not this will ever happen or if it is possible is the subject of much debate, but I say it this this potential that makes us superior. When we encounter a problem, we dont have a built-in biological mechanism to fight it- we must use our brains and cleverness to find an external solution to the problem, something that we are very good at.
On another note- on the defnition of superiority- In that analgoy people appear to be basically the same as bacteria, except for our infinitely larger mental capabilities- except the endospore thing which I addressed above. So, if we are the same in almost all other aspects then, by definition, the simple fact that we are superior in one respect and almost the same in all others makes us superior.

[headcase]

But potential doesn't make us superior. Yes, potentially we could conolise another planet, but we don't have that technology yet. You could say we don't have the intellect. For all intents and purposes, we haven't evolved it yet. If our habitat were to become uninhabitable in the near future, we would die off and the bacteria woud survive.

[Esophagus]

It all comes down to the cockroaches being the only things on the planet able to survive a nuclear blast story. Would that not make cockroaches superior to us in many ways? Being myself, and believing the main point to life is simply to enjoy it, living individualistically, and causing as little harm as necessary, I'd say we are far from superior to many species in many ways

[headcase]

Well, like I said:

For the sake of this arguement, I'll steer clear of spirituality, otherwise we'll be running in circles forever. Forget Jesus, let's talk about Darwin.

As for cockroaches surviving a nuclear blast, well thats a specific scenario. This is what makes deciding "superiority" difficult under my definitions. Different organisms are adapted to suit different environments. Cockroaches might survive a nuclear war, but might be killed off by... say... a sudden drop (or rise) in Earths temperature - while (generic example) mice might be killed by nuclear war but survive said temperature fluctuations.

So, upon revision, I guess the organism that can most quickly adapt itself to a change in its environment. I guess that brings us back to...... bacteria (and viruses).

Of course, humans could equally be deemed superior under these conditions because, as ComfortablyNumb pointed out, humans can manipulate their environment to suit themselves. It certainly works in the short-term.

[Esophagus]

I know it was a specific scenario, just an example.

Can humans really manipulate their surroundings, without lacking the insight to see any sort of long-temr affect? i guess thats what this whole thing is about, our conceit. We've convinced ourselves we'll cause no harm, and we've convinced ourselves were the best things to ever come to the planet. We are no doubt superior, but are we so superior that we aren't considered animal?

[gbu-36]

Damnit, I thought this thread was going to be about furries, you people dissapoint me =(

[Scamula]

Interesting perspectives...

Technically we are animals though we are considered to be the highest most evolved animal. Whether that is true or not remains to be debated. :)

I have always thought of the "other" animals as superior to us because they love unconditionally, they are not petty, they are not predjudiced, they aren't ignorant, they aren't rude and they don't cause half as much trouble and heartache as people do. If you gave me a choice of living on an island with other people or with only dogs or even rats, I'd choose the latter. Some animals may do some bloody things but that is only in the name of survival.

[Esophagus]

I agree. Thats kind of the point I was going for. We may be highly evolved, but the mroe we evolve, the more primal "hunter/gatherer" instinct we lose, we also lose a lot of the closeness and morale we once had.

A lion doesn't kill a lion, because it is its brother. It may kill a zebra instead, but it needs to survive somehow.

A man will often kill another man, and not look back. We'd kill the zebra to, whether we needed the food or not. Hunting for sport, ew.

Not to get into that argument, again just examples. We've lost our (ironically titled) humanitarian ways, in plenty aspects of our lives.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Actually adult male lions will often times kill all of the baby lions in their pride that belong to another male in order to impregnate the females with his own offspring. Hippos do this to. As do monkeys and chimps. As do bears.- and none of this killing is done for food or survival- its done for selfishness. brotherly love my ass. I love the discovery channel.

[headcase]

Chimps kill for kicks too, although they are pretty close to us, evolution wise.

[Scamula]

Actually adult male lions will often times kill all of the baby lions in their pride that belong to another male in order to impregnate the females with his own offspring. Hippos do this to. As do monkeys and chimps. As do bears.- and none of this killing is done for food or survival- its done for selfishness. brotherly love my ass. I love the discovery channel.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO!
:dead:

[Esophagus]

Not to bring the environment into this, but I don't thing anyones quite as selfish as us when it comes to wastefulness and killing.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Just because they dont have the know-how to be as selfishly efficient as we are. :bigok:

[headcase]

Maybe when resources get a little more scarce we'll have animal wars.

[Esophagus]

You mean like Beast Wars? Oh man, that was the worst Transformers spin-off ever.

[SilentOctober]

goddamnit... I liked beast wars. Beast wars the first beast wars, not the beast wars where they are on whatever organic planet that somehow in this day in age is trying oh so hard to be 3-d and still failing at comming up with decent animation although the same has been said about the other beast wars, but damnit, I liked it.

And as far as humans being the most superior creature on the planet...I really hope not.

[ecko]

I have to agree with you Esophagus!

[Esophagus]

Thanks, but this is long dead.

[bean9045]

Okay, this is something I've always found to be a big, annoying, issue with both science and religion. It bares the fangs of the entire human race, and the conceit and cocky attitude that lies within. Everyone seems to somehow think we are ABOVE animals. Even evolution, a theory saying that we have grown from them. We ARE animals, guys. Embrace it. We may have grown up into a bigger and better animal, but I wouldn't say we've moved far enough above everything else to consider ourselves wholly different. We're (trying to be) accepting of other races, why can't we learn to accept other species? I'm not saying this like I'm some vegan animal rights activist, because I'm really not. I wouldn't stop a lion from eatting a Zebra, so no ones going to stop me from eatting my cheeseburger. If we come from apes, then someday apes will become us, right? So we've advanced beyond anything the earths, ever seen (that we know of), I don't consider it a big deal. We've also done mroe harm than anything the earth's ever seen. Lets flaunt that in the face of a gorilla, living a completely simplistic lifestyle, with more intelligence than plenty of us would have if we were raised away from society.

Has this ever come to anyone elses mind?

ps
Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. An amaaaaaazing book.

Ishmael is one of my favorite books! :beerchug: