Curiousity makes me wonder...

[Chimaera182]

Magrus, may I say, I just love your new sig.

I think all animals are capable, of some for or another, of being accused of being able to use tools. A bear will scratch its back on a tree when it has an itch; people have backscratchers, or just use the corner of a wall (like my father). The finch in Lestat's example. There was an intelligence test run on some birds where they actually tested as quite brilliant when it came to using tools or figuring out how to get their food.

I don't remember exactly what point I was going for here, but I do have a question. Does anyone else find it interesting that most animals are born with the tools they need to survive, and yet man is completely naked in that regard? And speaking of naked, no a dog doesn't have to dress itself, but neither do people, either. We just dress up due to this so-called modesty issue we fell into. Also, clothes are supposed to help protect us from the elements (you know, like fur or hair). And yet, some stupid moronic doltish idiots with no brains think it's a status symbol to buy the most expensive or most popular clothes, which are just going to get dirty and thrown out in a few years anyway. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! (Sorry, ranting now ). And the day women start carrying around small plastic grocery bags instead of Prada or Gucci purses is the day they're truly liberated. Is this our highly-vaunted superiority? Being stupid?

[Fiona]

It seems to me we are all agreed that each extant creature is here because it has the ability to survive in the conditions it has faced so far: what has been called its "special talent" has allowed this.

I think Magrus original point was about the extent to which it is legitimate to continue to change the face of the world to the detriment of other species (and maybe our own) because that is possible for us, due to our "special talent".

A second strand seems to be about the relative value of the "special talents"; and how we would come to a conclusion about that. By implication this speaks to the relative value of species as such, perhaps?

Thirdly, if we can answer the second question we seem to be asking how the conclusion impacts on the approach to the first question?

I do not put these questions in any particular order, either of importance or even of logical sequence. I am only trying to tease out some of the threads so I can see what we are talking about. I am sure I have missed other important questions which are also embedded.

To comment a little on the questions I have raised: I have already made it plain that I do not see any logical reason to see the human "special talent" as superior to that of any other species which is still here. To that extent I think I agree with Magrus. I wonder what criteria should be used?

Physical criteria would have to be related to survival and spread, surely? And I am attracted by longevity of the species also. These measures show that our "talent" is effective. But there are insects who could legitmately claim the same thing, I understand, and so it does not seem to me to be decisive. Again, it is true we can dominate other species so that we determine their lives almost wholly. But when you look at the insect world, or even at rats this is not true. It is possible that this "talent" will lead us to destroy ourselves, and the last (maybe frivolous) doomsday thing I read suggested that cockroaches might survive where we would not. It hasn't happened so we cannot say, but I do not think that the superiority of our adaptive advantage is demonstrated, and indeed I think the time has been far too short to even begin to judge

Moral criteria have been raised also. Mankind's special talent is indeed related to the ability to communicate well; to make choices and to accept moral responsibility and abstract thought etc. Some here also introduce religious concepts. Does that make us superior in any way? I tend to think it makes us different but all species are different from each other. I am a bit confused about what is meant by superior. I do not agree with Magrus that animals make true moral choices as we do, though of course I cannot prove it. But neither can I accept they are robots, at least not at the level of vertebrates.
Primates seem to be more similar to us the more they are studied, and certainly there are apes which are more sophisticated than young children in that sense. Of course it is correct that they cannot reach the level of sophistication which the young child has as potential; but despite Lestat's view (as I understand it) that does not really answer the question why we should afford "the right to life" to a young child or a mentally impaired person but not to an ape. So far as I can see an animal values its life greatly, as I do. It is possible that it fights for its life through instinct and has no real wish for personal survival. But I cannot know that. Its reaction when threatened is the same as a human's so it seems a little odd to assume its motives are different, in the absence of any possible evidence. Again I bring this to the level of the individual and I know that some do not accept that is legitimate. All I can say is that only individuals die.

Another thing which has occurred to me is that I am a bit confused by what seems to me to be a conflation of concepts. Magrus and others seem to be talking about what is "good" when they refer to things like senseless violence, greed etc, and present that as evidence that man is not superior. And the question of legitimacy does raise that issue. Others seem to be focussing not on "good" so much as morally "right", when they talk about putting human beings before animals. Is it possible that this is part of the confusion?

[Chimaera182]

Just to deal with Fiona's example of insects and rats, and how we ware comparable to them due to our ability to survive and spread. The major difference between humans and insects/rats is that they have natural predators to keep them in line. We, sadly, do not. Good example, though.

I think a part of it--I hesitate to say that it's a big part--is that since time immemorial, religions have stressed that humans are special for some reason (we have souls, we are the chosen people, we were made in God's image, stuff like that). Some of that trickles down into today, even inadvertantly, and people go on believing in their superiority just because of something that was concocted thousands of years ago. Some of us may not be religious anymore but it doesn't mean the idea that we are somehow superior to animals hasn't gotten into our heads.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

I think a part of it--I hesitate to say that it's a big part--is that since time immemorial, religions have stressed that humans are special for some reason (we have souls, we are the chosen people, we were made in God's image, stuff like that). Some of that trickles down into today, even inadvertantly, and people go on believing in their superiority just because of something that was concocted thousands of years ago. Some of us may not be religious anymore but it doesn't mean the idea that we are somehow superior to animals hasn't gotten into our heads.

This made me think about another question. We do seem to all agree that it is not right to do certain cruel things to animals, such as poking their eyes out for fun etc. The limits of that vary between us, but what I would like to know from each of the different points of view is 1. where do you draw the line? and 2. why do you think that certain acts of cruelty are wrong or unacceptable?

[penguin_king]

Originally Posted by Aramant

Liberal hippy animal-loving commie!

reminds me of the stubbs the zombie game, the soldiers cry out "Sir! it's a flesh eating zombie commie scumbag, Sir!"

[Lestat]

I'm going to try to put in writing some coherent thoughts about this. I apologise on beforehand if it seems like rambling.

First of all, as might be clear from what went before, I do believe that humanity is a "superior" (for want of a better word) species. Not because of the reli-reasons that Chim mentioned, but based on its evolutionary success.
- no single species has so successfully adapted to as wide a range of and diverse number of environments, going from tropical rainforests over deserts to arctic lands to name the more extreme.
- when not adapting to the environment, humanity has adapted the environment on a large scale.
- there is not a single species of animal that can be considered a direct threat to humanity's survival (apart from humanity itself). But on the contrary, humanity is a threat to the survival of many other specieses.

Added to that:
- It's almost unique vulnerability and helplessness during a large part of its life is the strong point of humanity: it allows for flexibility in the types of behaviours and skills and whatever the young can learn: more needs to be learned by the young but at the same time this allows for a larger range of behaviour to be possibly learned (this of course, necessitates the intelligence and communication skills that some say set us apart). Societies & cultures can change more rapidly and drastically than genes and changes in behaviour more rapidly acquired and more easily varied. Other specieses come with far more of their behaviour patterns hardwired from birth, which allows for less flexibility and adaptation and thus a greater need for change through the genome.
- As far as I can see humanity is the only species that can consider the consequences of its actions in the long term and in the long range.
- Rights and responsibilities, two sides of the same coin, can be agreed upon amongst humans, but not amongst mammals (or tetrapods, or vertebrates) by lack of interspecies communication but also I believe, unless one can proof to me the contrary, by the absence of any capacity to fathom even the least concept of these by the other animals. So what ever we divise amongst these lines, it will have only meaning to us (even if it has consequences for the other specieses).

Now does that mean that I think that we can use animals however we please? No.
Two points:
- On the larger scale: as we are the only species that can consider the consequences of its action on a large time & space scale, we have a responsibility to balance the utility of these actions with the damage done. And I believe also that a diversity of life forms is a good thing to have around.
- On a smaller scale, we know that many animals can suffer. And I think we all believe that suffering (however much an enriching experience it might be for some of us) is in the end a negative thing not to be foisted on any living being without there being an extremely good reason.

Now from thereon I would start to build up my ethics regarding humanity's rules of engagement towards the rest of "creation".

[Masa]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

The major difference between humans and insects/rats is that they have natural predators to keep them in line. We, sadly, do not. Good example, though.

Ahem...yes we do they are only a bit smaller: ratfleas which spread blight, There are also many many viruses for example ebola and H5N1.

[penguin_king]

humans do have a natural predator. disease. but we're slowly finding ways to defend ourselves. some animals do it by camoflage, some by deadly spines on their backs. we, however, have antiviruses

[slade]

I dont know about you but if a bunch of chickens decided to invade my house....I would let...then I would lock the doors and all hell would break loose....and then....I would say that KFC's has nothing on me as I lick my fingers....in triumph

on a smaller note......yes....we ...have it coming...one way or another...we have it coming

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Lestat

But that tiger, as a species, now depends in a large measure on humans for its survival. So in the confrontation between specieses it clearly lost out.
And in this hypothetical confrontation between man and tiger you deny man the use of its inherent advantages (being a social, highly intelligent, tool-using species) while the tiger can use its inherent advantages (physical prowess & size). Man will gang up on the tiger and use weapons or other tools (nets) to defeat it. That is what man is.
And we have tools that can make us go faster than either bird or fish or cat or dog. And tool using is part of what we are as a species.
Just as it is for certain other specieses, like a type of finch that uses a little stick to get insect out of bark: instead of developing a longer finer beak it has developed the use of a tool. Both options are inherent qualities of a species, even if one is not a physical characteristic.

The tiger is now dependant on humans for survival because humans destroyed their natural habitat, killed off their food supply and were hunting them for profit.

You seem to view humans as being superior, at least from what I have gathered, and not just you alone for these reasons:

1. The ability to create new things.
2. The ability to adapt and survive in varying environments.
3. The ability to conquer new terrain and hold it.
4. The ability to subjegate and dominate or kill off anything that isn't wanted or is a threat.

I'll grant you that humans are intelligent, and create things they want, or tools to make their life easier. They can learn to kill just about anything, and are good at it. However, I do not see how this makes them superior overall. They may be damn good at those things, possibly even the best there is out of every other species.

However...in order to make me believe a species is better than all of the rest, I'm going to look into things other than sheer accomplishments. I can build stuff, and I can move and adapt, and I can wander down my street, break into people's houses, kill the occupents and take their stuff. Would that, in your eyes, make me superior to the people I kill?

@ Chim, Thanks, it's a clip from the song "Cooking Wine" by Alkaline Trio. And yeah, people are ridiculously stupid.

@ Fiona, I think the big thing is my view of "superiority" has truly nothing to do with the ability to dominate or kill off other species, or to simply survive. It is based on the actions overall of a species in regards to those around it. I find humans to be sadly, horribly lacking in that aspect compared to nearly every other species I can think of. They are greedy, selfish, horribly destructive and don't give a damn about anything but themselves as a species overall.

[Chimaera182]

There's a difference between predators and parasites. A predator kills its prey outright and eats it in order to survive. A parasite, bacterium, virus, whatever will invade your body, keeping you alive, and uses you to reproduce and feed. If left unchecked, yes they can kill you, but it doesn't make them a predator.

Originally Posted by Magrus

However...in order to make me believe a species is better than all of the rest, I'm going to look into things other than sheer accomplishments. I can build stuff, and I can move and adapt, and I can wander down my street, break into people's houses, kill the occupents and take their stuff. Would that, in your eyes, make me superior to the people I kill?

@ Fiona, I think the big thing is my view of "superiority" has truly nothing to do with the ability to dominate or kill off other species, or to simply survive. It is based on the actions overall of a species in regards to those around it. I find humans to be sadly, horribly lacking in that aspect compared to nearly every other species I can think of. They are greedy, selfish, horribly destructive and don't give a damn about anything but themselves as a species overall.

Also, humans aren't the only ones who build cities. Beehives, anthills, rabbit burrows, they're all communities that they all build. Some of the "cities" these animals build are quite elaborate. Most animals are social creatures, and can construct grandiose projects, just as much as humans can.

I still don't see the justification of superiority by being masters of their environment. The environment is our enemy, yet many animals adapt to it. This proves them to be more resilient, stronger, better. We make the environment adapt to us, which proves us weaker and less capable of withstanding nature. I fail to see that as making us superior.

[Darzog]

Originally Posted by Magrus

However...in order to make me believe a species is better than all of the rest, I'm going to look into things other than sheer accomplishments. I can build stuff, and I can move and adapt, and I can wander down my street, break into people's houses, kill the occupents and take their stuff. Would that, in your eyes, make me superior to the people I kill?

I still think you are not answering the point that is being made... In the tiger's case, the tiger is not capable of doing to us what we did to it. In your example, the people down the street are capable of doing it to you (and I don't mean YOU specifically), so just based on accomplishment and capability, the two scenarios are different enough that your analogy does nothing to discredit the Tiger analogy.

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Darzog

I still think you are not answering the point that is being made... In the tiger's case, the tiger is not capable of doing to us what we did to it. In your example, the people down the street are capable of doing it to you (and I don't mean YOU specifically), so just based on accomplishment and capability, the two scenarios are different enough that your analogy does nothing to discredit the Tiger analogy.

I thought I did. I mentioned that I do not view what humans did in that scenario as being "superior", but cruel and destructive. That, I find to be morally inferior.

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

Also, humans aren't the only ones who build cities. Beehives, anthills, rabbit burrows, they're all communities that they all build. Some of the "cities" these animals build are quite elaborate. Most animals are social creatures, and can construct grandiose projects, just as much as humans can.

But their buildings always follow the same patterns, repeating their hardwired behavioural patterns. And they would be hard put to adapt their building practices to other clearly distinct environments

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

I still don't see the justification of superiority by being masters of their environment. The environment is our enemy, yet many animals adapt to it. This proves them to be more resilient, stronger, better. We make the environment adapt to us, which proves us weaker and less capable of withstanding nature. I fail to see that as making us superior.

So if you master your enemy you're weaker then when you adapt to it? We can withstand nature better because we build to withstand nature.
How do you get from "we make the environment adapt to us" to "which proves us weaker and less capable of withstanding nature". Sorry I don't see any logical reasoning in that phrase? Certainly by adapting the environment we enhance our chances of withstanding nature? Does overcoming your physical weaknesses by ingenuity make you weak overall?

My benchmark is, amongst others, survival success of the species in a diversity of circumstances and environments for "superiority", which is more or less an amoral criterion. Which is also why I keep putting "superior" between quotation marks.

Magrus seems to judge superiority animals & humans a like by some kind of moral or ethical criterion. Which is bizarre since he himself said they will have another idea of right or wrong maybe wholy alien to us, and as for me I doubt that animals manifest any moral behaviour. In both cases applying "our" morals on their behaviour, to judge who is "superior" is in my opinion misguided, since you use something that is uniquely applicable to humans to judge other specieses.

However...in order to make me believe a species is better than all of the rest, I'm going to look into things other than sheer accomplishments. I can build stuff, and I can move and adapt, and I can wander down my street, break into people's houses, kill the occupents and take their stuff. Would that, in your eyes, make me superior to the people I kill?

Will society then afterwards, lock you up and condemn either to prison or not?
Would people who continue to do this stand a larger survival chance than those that organise themselves and have the behaviour between them regulated? I think not, basically because far more people live normal lives than people who go around murdering and robbing and when too large a portion of human society indulges in that type of behaviour it breaks down, of which I witnessed the aftermath. So that type of behaviour is in the end self destructive.

Moreover, I speak of the biological & evolutionary "superiority", not of moral "superiority". And species is again confounded with individual.

And it's not the extinction of tiger or the destruction of the tiger that determines it's "inferiority", but it's inability to cope with a changing environment, it's inability to change its behavioural patterns, again, as a species.

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Lestat

Will society then afterwards, lock you up and condemn either to prison or not?
Would people who continue to do this stand a larger survival chance than those that organise themselves and have the behaviour between them regulated? I think not, basically because far more people live normal lives than people who go around murdering and robbing and when too large a portion of human society indulges in that type of behaviour it breaks down, of which I witnessed the aftermath. So that type of behaviour is in the end self destructive.

*nods* Most likely yes. Which, is what boggles my mind about the human viewpoint, which you have, that humans are superior BECAUSE they kill other species and take their natural habitats and make it their own. What society views as criminal and evil for one human to do to another is perfectly acceptable to do to another species. WHY? Why is that viewed as proof of superiority when acted upon another species, and evil when acted upon your same species? Why, when as you say "So that type of behaviour is in the end self destructive."

Magrus seems to judge superiority animals & humans a like by some kind of moral or ethical criterion. Which is bizarre since he himself said they will have another idea of right or wrong maybe wholy alien to us, and as for me I doubt that animals manifest any moral behaviour. In both cases applying "our" morals on their behaviour, to judge who is "superior" is in my opinion misguided, since you use something that is uniquely applicable to humans to judge other specieses.

Is it unique to humans? They undoubtably have varying ideas of what is "good" because they're goals in life vary. However, from everything I have encountered with other species, they all attain a balance with the other species with are native to their natural habitat. They don't breed in excessive numbers to the point it destroys the area around them and kills off their food sources as humans do. Whether or not that is a consicous thing is irrevalent I think.

They act on a basis that shows a common moral ground in which they take what they need and no less or no more. Humans seem devoid of that simple thought pattern. Whether it is instinct or a thought, I cannot say. I am not a cat, or a whale, or a bird. A sparrow can't ask me why my ancestors cut down the trees it's ancestors used to use as their homes, but perhaps that's what they are chirping when we walk by? Until I have proof of the contrary, that will be a possibility in my mind I will not rule out.