Are humans higher life forms than animals?

[John Dibble]

We are animals. As a species we have evolved a level of intelligence unsurpassed by any other organism on this planet, but even so we are still animals and share our ancestry with those other organisms. We are better are certain things because of our intelligence, and that aids in our survival and propagation. But that doesn't make us higher - in evolution there is no such concept. It isn't a ladder where organisms strive to become a certain thing. There are only those that succeed in surviving and passing on their genes and those that die and go extinct. It is quite probable our species will be outlived by simple bacteria, so to claim that we're higher is arrogance.

[John Dibble]

I don see why having language makes you a superior species.

Language gives us the ability to utilize knowledge well beyond each individual's personal experience in both time and space.

And being a sperm whale gives you the ability to dive three kilometers below the ocean unaided and devour giant squid. Are they superior to humans because they can do that and we can't?

[John Dibble]

Animals can't think and have no emotions.

While humans tend to have the best problem solving skills there are a number of other species that manage to think of solutions to problems. Additionally many social mammals show emotion, especially apes other than us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lock yourself in a room with a tiger - do you think you can convince the tiger of your superiority while it's eating you?

[John Dibble]

I don see why having language makes you a superior species.

Language gives us the ability to utilize knowledge well beyond each individual's personal experience in both time and space.

And being a sperm whale gives you the ability to dive three kilometers below the ocean unaided and devour giant squid. Are they superior to humans because they can do that and we can't?

If I took the libertarian POV in which individual self-sufficiency is all that matters, then I would admit that they are.  However despite the fact that libertarians despise the fact, man is a social animal.  Language is the glue that binds us together and enabled us to go even deeper than the sperm whales and to acquire giant squid for ourselves to devour if we wish, so if sperm whales are superior, it's not because of that. That's the problem with libertarianism. It totally ignores how functional human societies work.

You seem to misunderstand as libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. The sheer flexibility of our species is not what I am questioning - I damn well know we can build submarines. The topic at hand is if we are higher life forms, and that is what I disagree with. As a species we may have greater flexibility, but as individual lifeforms we're not all that much better in the grand scheme of things. We can be killed by simple bacteria for crying out loud. One particularly virulent disease could wipe us out. We may be the smartest animals in the world, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, the biggest, the most virile, etc. Without our technology, we are significantly disadvantaged - if anything our numerous inferiorities are why we had the need to invent various technologies in the first place. I think it rather arrogant to sit ourselves upon a pedestal and call ourselves better than our animal cousins, all things considered.

And again, from an evolutionary perspective there is no such thing as superiority - there is only fitness to survive and reproduce, a quality which we're not the only ones to have.

[John Dibble]

You seem to misunderstand as libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Actually, it does.  Your entire reply was that because individually we're nothing special, we can't consider ourselves to be superior.  Whereas, what makes us superior is our ability to form large groups of cooperating individuals.

By that standard ants, bees, and termites are superior to us, as they not only form large groups but cooperate and coordinate much better than we do.

[John Dibble]

You seem to misunderstand as libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Actually, it does.  Your entire reply was that because individually we're nothing special, we can't consider ourselves to be superior.  Whereas, what makes us superior is our ability to form large groups of cooperating individuals.

By that standard ants, bees, and termites are superior to us, as they not only form large groups but cooperate and coordinate much better than we do.

Not really.  The so-called social insects are examples of multicorporeal animals rather than social animals.  Unlike humans, you don't find individual ants, bees, or termites leaving one group and joining another.

And why is this lack of social cohesion necessarily a superior trait? Ants, bees, and termites not leaving the group is good for their group and their species - they don't have to worry about selfish individuals putting their own needs ahead of those of the group.

Also, you aren't quite correct here anyways. Some species of ants will recognize ants from genetically related colonies as friendly and will freely mix between different nests.

[John Dibble]

To those who object: When is the last time you saw an animal drive a car or watch TV?

When did you last communicate by sonar.

Or carried something ten times your weight for the equivalent of many miles without resting?