Are humans higher life forms than animals?

[Blue3]

Animals can't think and have no emotions.

Humans are superior.

Factually wrong.

Our cognitive differences with other animals is one of degree, not kind.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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.

[ilikeverin]

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.

Someone mentioned "language" before me?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

It would be interesting to take this question and cross-reference it with an "Are you a vegetarian?" question.

[The Mikado]

There's no good yes or no answer as it completely depends on the context and what is meant by "higher."  My non-answer is "in some respects effectively yes for all practical purposes, in other respects absolutely not."

[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.

[Mehmentum]

Is there anything that an animal can do that humans or our creations can't?

This is the key question.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[dead0man]

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

Or what makes people think animals don't communicate with "language".

[dead0man]

Animals can't think and have no emotions.

ALL mammals have emotions.  Some of the "lower" forms probably do to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I still agree with this.

[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.

[bgwah]

Maybe (I think my answer will move to a definitive yes once we move beyond simply being the most intelligent mammals and begin widespread genetic engineering of our offspring and begin incorporating major cybernetic elements into our bodies), but I don't think that gives us the right to use other animals however we wish. In fact I think our intelligence and technology leaves us with no excuse for not becoming predominately herbivores and minimizing use of other animals.

[dead0man]

Indeed.  I for one welcome factory made meat.

[Beet]

I think all of life is part of a great continuum, and humans are just one aspect of that continuum. I think all people are part of a continuum, and you and I and everyone is just a part of that continuum. I think one advantage that humans have is that we have civilization.

In a sense, civilization is the larger organism, and each generation simply embodies a part it for a limited period of time. We are biologically practically the same as our ancestors; we go through the same life cycles, have the same desires and frustrations. If the generation born in 1790 was born in 1990, most of them would favor gay marriage. Same with the generation born in 590, or 5010 B.C.E. The only thing that's different today is the outside, not the inside. But even the outside is a reflection of the past because it was the labor of past generations that made the material conditions of today, which in turn made support for gay marriage possible. Both the linear external world and the human internal world, in which each generation is reincarnated again and again, connect us with other generations in different ways. Our biology makes us similar to them, while our environment was shaped by them (and we in turn shape for our descendants). Teachings, philosophies, religions, and culture are the same.

Hence, I don't put a lot of stock in individualism. Our bodies are just vessels to experience what's lasting, which is outside the body. In writings, in buildings, in languages, in and in the metaphysical.

[DemPGH]

Our ability to make tools and to figure out the physical world around us sets us apart from everything else, so yes, we are a superior form of life, but in no shape, manner, or form does that give the right to simply trample over nature because, despite our superiority, we are still part of and dependent on nature. We cannot exist without nature, but it surely can exist without us. The greater our power the greater is our obligation to restrain it, and to do that is the true mark of superiority.

[Blue3]

Our ability to make tools and to figure out the physical world around us sets us apart from everything else, so yes, we are a superior form of life, but in no shape, manner, or form does that give the right to simply trample over nature because, despite our superiority, we are still part of and dependent on nature. We cannot exist without nature, but it surely can exist without us. The greater our power the greater is our obligation to restrain it, and to do that is the true mark of superiority.

You know that several other species, from apes to birds to octopuses to insects, have been document using tools, right?

Our difference from other species is one of degree, not kind.

Otherwise, I agree.

[DemPGH]

Our ability to make tools and to figure out the physical world around us sets us apart from everything else, so yes, we are a superior form of life, but in no shape, manner, or form does that give the right to simply trample over nature because, despite our superiority, we are still part of and dependent on nature. We cannot exist without nature, but it surely can exist without us. The greater our power the greater is our obligation to restrain it, and to do that is the true mark of superiority.

You know that several other species, from apes to birds to octopuses to insects, have been document using tools, right?

Oh, of course. Dolphins ingeniously use sponges to protect their snouts while rooting for food. And chimps use meager tools as well. But none build rifles or engines or projectiles or computers. The human capability to build and then improve upon tools is remarkable.

I think I follow you on the degree, not kind part. It's quite a degree, though.

[Mehmentum]

Our ability to make tools and to figure out the physical world around us sets us apart from everything else, so yes, we are a superior form of life, but in no shape, manner, or form does that give the right to simply trample over nature because, despite our superiority, we are still part of and dependent on nature. We cannot exist without nature, but it surely can exist without us. The greater our power the greater is our obligation to restrain it, and to do that is the true mark of superiority.

You know that several other species, from apes to birds to octopuses to insects, have been document using tools, right?

Our difference from other species is one of degree, not kind.

Otherwise, I agree.

There is a difference of kind between using and making tools.  Do any other animals make tools? 

[Blue3]

Chimpanzees sharpen sticks they use as spears. Chimps and bonobos also refine sticks and use leaves for brushes when getting termites/ants/bees, as well as making "sponges" out of leaves and moss to bathe each other. Gorillas and orangutans use walking sticks to measure the depth of water, gorillas use special sticks to get inside some prickly fruits, and orangutans have been seen using nets to fish. Monkeys also use sticks and stone hammers, though don't seem to make them.

Elephants also use sticks, chew bark into balls and bury them with sand (to trap moisture and water in the hole, to drink when they return), and use rocks to damage electric fences so they can pass. Dolphins use sponges to protect their noses when searching for food, use conch shells to catch small fish. Sea otters, bears, canines, and octopuses have all been observed using tools, and even refining existing tool. As well as crows, ravens, ostriches, parrots, finches, vultures, seagulls, and other birds. Ravens have even been seen making "toys" by breaking sticks and using them to play with each other.  There's also very primitive tool use by some fish (to smash food) and the social insects.

[ilikeverin]

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

Or what makes people think animals don't communicate with "language".

Because they don't have recursion.  Their communication systems don't allow them to talk about yesterday or tomorrow, or to spread gossip, trade rumors, or share less-than-immediately-useful information.  Certainly some animal communication systems share some properties with human language, which gives you some weird studies with chinchillas, but no animal communication system as all of (or the most interesting properties of) human language.

[pbrower2a]

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

Indeed I would rather trust a box turtle than a Nazi or Stalinist.

[pbrower2a]

Animals can't think and have no emotions.

Humans are superior.

Elephants and cetaceans rival us for intelligence. Dogs and big cats have emotions. Crows are known to drop walnuts at a highway intersection in front of cars stopped for the red light and return to pick out the edible nut-meat left over after the walnut has become 'road-kill' after the next batch of cars is stopped. So much for the 'bird-brained' birds with their small but efficient brains.

Elephants show reverence for their dead, and they are known to take revenge against poachers much as humans take revenge against man-eating big cats.

I suspect that elephants even have religion... and that Ganesh isn't the only god in the form of an elephant. Why would elephants have human-shaped gods? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why would elephants have human-shaped gods? 

For much the same reasons as why some humans have elephant-shaped gods?