Curiousity makes me wonder...

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by Lestat

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

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?

Um. Most of the human buildings follow very similar designs and patterns, as well; I had a friend who lived in Coral Springs, and she lived with her sister in this two-floor apartment (or flat). I went to meet another friend last month in his apartment, also in Coral Springs, and it was a completely different part of the town. Yet, the entire apartment (flat) looked exactly the same as my first friend's place; the only difference was that this one had a third floor. Other than that, it was exactly identical. And I live in an apartment complex myself, and while each individual room on a given floor may be different, the ones above and below them are exactly the same. We, too, follow patterns when constructing our buildings.

They are biologically stronger because they can adapt to their environment. We have to terraform the entire planet to suit our needs in order for it to be habitable for us.

[dj_venom]

Originally Posted by Masa

This has been proven time and time again. Animals don't murder out of lust or greed, but in defense of young and territory, and on instinct alone, not premeditation. The differences go on and on.

Wanna bet? We had two budgies, one was younger than the other, and the younger one was weaker too. As a result, he would let us take him out of the cage and pat him, the older one however would not. So we lavished more attention on the other bird, since it liked it more... then one morning, we found that Bangers had killed Mash.

Originally Posted by Masa

You may think that you can be born as an animal, well I don't, I believe animals don't have a soul.
At least not the kind of soul that humans have. We aren't just brain, heart and body.

Give me proof of our souls and I'll give you broof of an animal's soul.

Originally Posted by Masa

I was trying to imply if a an animal was scared of the place and had no reason to go in there, anyway animals aren't capable of doing crazy things for no reason.

I just felt like quoting this, 4 people in a row did it.

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

The idea of murdering a child is one of those universal wrongs I mentioned. Some cultures might believe that murdering a child is right. In fact, in some eastern cultures (if I'm wrong, please correct me) it is considered bad to give birth to a girl. And there are many ways to "deal" with that kind of problem.

Two things there. In some South American tribes, they would kill a 3rd born child, since the mother and father could only carry one child each, and a 3rd would slow them down.

In China, due to extreme population, they are only allowed one child (I think they are allowing two if the first born is a female). Due to custom however, males have a huge role to play, especially in supporting the parents. As a result, they want male children, not female.

Originally Posted by penguin_king

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

I wanna get that game , it looked pretty good in the review I read.

Originally Posted by Masa

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.

Well not really, every animal has disease, so you can't really count it as a predator.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Lestat

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.

I have some difficulty in following your thought. I assume you mean no tautology, so I have to conclude that for you evolutionary success is intrinsically admirable in some sense. Does that necessarily follow? Many people would argue that the financiallly successful human being is "superior". I can't see that myself, and the argument is of the same form, or am I missing something?

Even if I accept that supposition I still consider that the elements of evolutionary success you adduce are questionable. All those you identify are true, but you have not addressed longevity, which I raised and see as important. Neither you nor I have any evidence which is not open to question. But the ability to alter the environment to our short term needs does seem to have the potential to destroy our habitat. If that should happen in the next couple of hundred years, it would be difficult to argue for our success as a species. In fact the fatal flaw would be inherent in our nature and that is surely the essence of tragedy? It would be hard to argue for our success in view of the short period of our hegemony. As I said, it is too early to tell.

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by dj_venom

Wanna bet? We had two budgies, one was younger than the other, and the younger one was weaker too. As a result, he would let us take him out of the cage and pat him, the older one however would not. So we lavished more attention on the other bird, since it liked it more... then one morning, we found that Bangers had killed Mash.

...

Two things there. In some South American tribes, they would kill a 3rd born child, since the mother and father could only carry one child each, and a 3rd would slow them down.

In China, due to extreme population, they are only allowed one child (I think they are allowing two if the first born is a female). Due to custom however, males have a huge role to play, especially in supporting the parents. As a result, they want male children, not female.

You seriously named them Bangers and Mash? omg that's funny.

Okay, I didn't know that about some South American tribes, but I was kind of thinking of China when I said that about those cultures.

[C Elegans]

This thread contains so many misconceptions regarding the concept of "intelligence", human evolution and other things, so I hesitate to post in it, but at least, I'll reply to Magrus' opening post:

Originally Posted by Magrus

All things considered, if you look at everything in an unbiased manner, humanity has essentially killed off species they didn't want around, killed enough of them to drive them off the land they wanted (I.E. Wolves), or enslave them for their own uses (I.E. chickens, cattle, horses, dogs, etc).

This is true for a lot of regions but not for all. There are regions where the human population is still dependent on the ecosystem in the same fashion as other omnivores, and thus they behave like other omnivores.

If another species, or more than one, lets say a group of the larger predator species decided they'd had enough of humanity messing with their world and broke into houses all over and started slaughtering families, would you think it was unwarrented, and cruel? Or would you think it was justified?

If I understand your question correctly, your question boils down to the age-old principal moral question: is it justified and right that the stronger should rule the weaker on the criteria of being stronger? To this, my answer is clearly no.
However, the questions gets more complicated in the case of different species because as far as we know, no other species on earth has the large degree of adaptabiliy and the kind of self-awareness that is necessary in order to choose to change their behaviour as humans in can under certain circumstances.

My personal opinion is simple. Humans have the same right to eat other species as other carnivores or omnivores. Moral vegetarians often claim that humans have a choice which is true for some humans, but it should be noted that nutrition studies show less good health for vegetarians and vegans than omnivores, especially children. I do think it is justified to eat other species to keep your health. I do not think it is justified to make your living lunch suffer.

I do think medical reseach on animals are justified, as well as medical research on humans. Unnecessary suffering must be excluded though. I do not think cosmetics testing on animals is justified at all.

I do think humans can use and keep other species (animal husbandry) for her own well-being and survival as long as no unnecessary suffering is introduced. I do not think it is justified to create inbred strains of crippled animals and to keep these animals as pets for the sake of personal pleasure and entertainment.

The above is a very short summary of my views on this topic, views that are based on:

1. My view of humans as a species among other species, quantitatively different in terms of current evolutionary success, level of adaptation and cognitive functions but not different in the sense of what mechanisms determines our behaviour and what needs and rights we should have in relationship to other species.

2. The potential for suffering and the potential to make a difference to decrease suffering. A human has the potential to do a vast amount of destruction or a vast amount of helpful acts far beyond her own individual being or proximal surrounding. A human also a nervous system and a social system that can elicit more emotional, physical and social suffering than most other species. Thus, it is for instance better for me to eat an insect than another human being and it is better for me to eat a cat than to eat a baboon.

Originally Posted by Aramant

I went to one of the highschools that services the largest Native Reserve in North America (or so I've been told), and I tell you, the vast majority of the Native student population, as well as non-students about town, really showed very little to be admired or respected.

Do you meant that the vast social problems caused by the hunting and then discrimination of native North Americans change the immorality of the behaviour of the European population who colonised North America?

Originally Posted by Denethorn

I've certainly seem programmes about the same idea - either physically or intellectually Neanderthals had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens. I can't remember the exact cause of their extinction, however, I recall something to do with their failure to migrate, or mis-migration as it were

It is not known why Homo Neanderthalensis went extinct. There are several hypothesis, among them lack of adaptability due to cold-adaption and even that they did not go extinct but interbreeded with Sapiens, but none are validated so far. Neanderthalensis has been estimated to have a larger brain size than Homo Sapiens, but most of this is believed to be bulk due to cold-adaptation. From the scientific community it is not believed nor has it been claimed that Neanderthalensis had more complex or higher cognitive skills than Sapiens.

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

We're a selfish species, we always have been, we always will be. That's why it sucks to be anything else on this planet.

Originally Posted by Masa

Animals are only animals, they can't think as we humans. They just act upon their senses and that is what gives us the right to "use" animals to our own advantage

Originally Posted by Lestat

Well, you can object to Masa's calling humans the greatest race, but if you strip the word "great" of the moral content and purely look at achievement, he's right. No other species has been able to adapt its environment to it's need in the way humans have, most other animals (excluding some insect specieses) have to adapt fully to their environment.

This three statements are completely related although the posters may not have intended them to be. Humans are selfish in the same sense as everything living is selfish: we strive and compete for our own survival and for the survival of our species. In this competition, our species is the single most successful due to our cognitive functions. No other species are as dependent of learning as Homo Sapiens, and this learning dependency is what makes us so highly adaptive so we have the most global distribution of any single species. The same cognitive skills also make us the most powerful species (I don't like value-loaded terms like "great" or "superior") since we have the ability to change our environment to fit our needs. Like all other animals, we act on our survival needs but we have larger power to act in a way that influence the world around us and thus, other species as well. This does not give us a larger right, and it does not make us any better. But it does not make us any worse either, since we do what any other species with the same abilities and drives as we have, would do. Animals and humans alike act on the evolutionary drive to survive.

So why are humans so seemingly unnecessary cruel, to other species, to nature, and not the least, to our own species? Well, one current hypothesis is that it is due to the extreme selection pressure that occurred on the relatively small group of animals who were our ancestors. It would take me a thesis to explain this fully, but let's just conclude that "it is in our nature" to behave in a cruel way in competitative situations. This will not change and it will not go away, Homo Sapiens have these features and needs to evolve to another species to be nice and kind at group level.

However, now we come back to Magrus original question: do we have the right to destroy and torture just because we are more powerful? Homo Sapiens flexibility and adaptability also means that theoretically, we could also create an environment where the factors that trigger our destructive behaviours (ie competition for resources, conflicts etc) were minimised and thus, destructive behaviours were made redundant. So why don't we do this? Most likely because at group level, our cognitive skills require vast amounts of learning and training in order to understand long-term gain as opposed to short-term gratification. So, at group level we are as stuck in our destructive behaviour as any other animal is stuck in their behaviour. The "free will" of humanity is an illusion made up by our higher cognitive functions that enable us to visualise and think things that are not. We are only partly free, and as a group, because we are a group living species, we are not especially free at all.

[Chimaera182]

My personal opinion is simple. Humans have the same right to eat other species as other carnivores or omnivores. Moral vegetarians often claim that humans have a choice which is true for some humans, but it should be noted that nutrition studies show less good health for vegetarians and vegans than omnivores, especially children. I do think it is justified to eat other species to keep your health. I do not think it is justified to make your living lunch suffer.

I call myself a carnivore; I prefer eating meat over any other kind of food, and most meals I eat have to contain meat in them. I don't like the arguement moral vegetarians make about eating animals, because quite honestly I don't think they've thought it through. They've basically decided that it's not okay to eat one kind of living creature, but it is okay to eat another (plant matter). They make the claim that it's wrong to treat animals that way, but who made them the referees of morality? Who says eating a plant is any less cruel than eating an animal?

I do think medical reseach on animals are justified, as well as medical research on humans. Unnecessary suffering must be excluded though.

I agree, although I'd rather see more medical research on humans. After all, if the research is going to benefit humans, we have to know how such products will affect humans, and sometimes using animals as test subjects doesn't work out quite so well.

The "free will" of humanity is an illusion made up by our higher cognitive functions that enable us to visualise and think things that are not. We are only partly free, and as a group, because we are a group living species, we are not especially free at all.

I'm only quoting this because I thought it was a good line. CE, you're too eloquent.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Masa

I presume you also believe in evolution theory.

If you hold the belief that evolution is not how humans came to be, then you should read this thead. Please read the entire thread, all posts, and comment.

Look despite what you're trying to tell me humans and animals are incomparable. Animals can't tell right from wrong, humans have free will, Animals act on instinct. Animals, with few exceptions, notably cetaceans and simians, do not have a sense of self as do humans, humans have the ability to conceptualize, animals do not as evidenced time and time again. Humans have sex for pleasure, animals do not with the exception of dolphins and Pygmy chimpanzees. This has been proven time and time again. Animals don't murder out of lust or greed, but in defense of young and territory, and on instinct alone, not premeditation. The differences go on and on.

You should read up on etology and behavioural science before stating your personal opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. The paragraph above contains numerious errors. Chimaera182 has already pointed out most of them, but I want to stress that your statements above are lacking in correct information.

You may think that you can be born as an animal, well I don't, I believe animals don't have a soul.
At least not the kind of soul that humans have. We aren't just brain, heart and body.

If you argue that humans and other species are different based on your religious belief that is one thing. I don't share your beliefs, but I accept your arguments. I do however not accept that you mix your religious arguments with erranous pseudo-facts as the ones in your paragraph above. Please keep those apart; your religious arguments do not become stronger or more valid because you throw in factual errors about human and animal behaviour.

Originally Posted by Fiona

In the end I do not think it is possible to demonstrate any conclusive difference between humans and animals. Whatever dimensions you pick, there is overlap. For example there are human beings so badly disabled that they demonstrate no discernible intelligence at all. They are still human but in functional terms they are less intelligent than many animals.

Whereas I do agree with you that there is overlap, I do not agree that overlap in principle makes distiction impossible. There is a 60% overlap between the genome of yeast and the human genome; yet, I would clearly say the two species are distictly different and a meaningful, non-arbitrary, separation can be made.

What I do think though, is that the question of functional value (like intelligence, ability, behaviour) is relevant if differences in functional value is to serve as an argument for differences is value and/or rights. A person who argue that humans have more rights based on more powerful cognitive skills, must consequently agree that healthy humans has more rights than human beings with developmental disorders, and that chimps have more rights than human beings with severe cognitive impairment. This consequence is important to see.

I agree with Lestat that:

Originally Posted by Lestat

one has to make laws & rules (in this case lets say rules of behaviour to other living beings) on general principles and cases and only then refine towards the individual cases.

but if "cognitive skills" or other function-based criteria are the sole critera, then it is some other quality as well, a specific "being-human-quality" that makes you value unfunctional specimen of one species higher than functional specimen of the other species.

As controversial as it may sound to many of you, the consequence of my "benchmarks" as I stated in my first post, is that I am not very "species loyal". If a human being lacks the potential for acting outside its own immediate sphere, for instance due to severe cognitive impairment, there is no reason why this human being should have more rights or be worth more, than a healthy chimp. Belonging to the species Homo sapiens does not, in my value system, give you any certain rights by birth. If I get demented, it's better to use me for medical experiments (not that it is scientifically valid, just as an example) than a healthy and functioning non-human primate.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

I call myself a carnivore; I prefer eating meat over any other kind of food, and most meals I eat have to contain meat in them. I don't like the arguement moral vegetarians make about eating animals, because quite honestly I don't think they've thought it through. They've basically decided that it's not okay to eat one kind of living creature, but it is okay to eat another (plant matter). They make the claim that it's wrong to treat animals that way, but who made them the referees of morality? Who says eating a plant is any less cruel than eating an animal?

Veganism sometimes holds the same features as other ideological cults, and in such groups I have found that completely irrational arguments like "cuteness"-arguments are very important. More serious moral vegetarians often has a suffering-argument, ie it's better to eat plants because they lack a nervous system and thus do not suffer like animals do. Now, it is easy to differentiate between a pig and a carrot, but in biological taxonomy the line between animal and plant is not very distinct. There is also a variety of animals who lack pain receptors, so theoretically, from the suffering-argument, it can be derived that it is equally good to eat plants or fleas. There is another important aspect though which I find more valid in this particular case, and that is the ecological effects. From an environmental perspective, it would probably be best if we all cultivated and ate insects rather than plants or vertebrate animals. This is however not a popular conclusions among moral vegetarians.

I agree, although I'd rather see more medical research on humans. After all, if the research is going to benefit humans, we have to know how such products will affect humans, and sometimes using animals as test subjects doesn't work out quite so well.

A lot of medical animal research is "model" research which is impossible to do on humans without killing them. Good though is that an increasing amount of research can be done on cultivated cells and cloned tissue. In the future I am sure we will not need to use animals for medical research, but we are not quite there yet, unfortunately. It should be noted though that the cosmetics industry use far more test animals than medical research, but strangely, at least in Sweden, there are no activists who target the cosmetics labs for their raids, only medical facilities.

[Magrus]

Personally, I think it is a broken concept to test how something will react for humans on another species. Given the vast differences in how one medication can affect the many people in one species, why bother to test it on another species? Not to mention...when did the creature of another species ever say it was willing to be a test subject? What makes that any better than tying up some person off of the street and making him/her your test subject against his/her will?

Originally Posted by C Elegans

This is true for a lot of regions but not for all. There are regions where the human population is still dependent on the ecosystem in the same fashion as other omnivores, and thus they behave like other omnivores.

*nods* However, looking at an overall view of the entire human population, the species is in general cruel and destruction in regards to the world around them. Granted, most people don't actively go around attempting to maul and mutilate other species, however, how many people have you noticed avoid activities that may harm another species that would inconvenience it? How many people have given up their cars and walked instead of driving them because of the pollution it caused in the air around it?

Meh, time for work, can't stay to post any longer.

[Masa]

@C E

This thread contains so many misconceptions regarding the concept of "intelligence", human evolution and other things, so I hesitate to post in it

Well you certainly seem to think you're all knowing

If you hold the belief that evolution is not how humans came to be, then you should read this thead. Please read the entire thread, all posts, and comment.

Why did you want me to read that thread? though it was intresting reading.
You didn't try to convince me to believe evolution? Because that would be pointless.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Masa

Well you certainly seem to think you're all knowing

Yes, since the human brain is my profession I am very knowledgable about human behaviour and fairly knowledgable about behaviour in other species. Thus, I easily detect gross factual errors such as "if an animal is afraid of a dungeon it would never go there, but if a human is afraid of a dungeon he can decide to there anyway". If you claim to be knowledgable, you need to leave references to the statements you claim are facts, to support that they are indeed facts. You just saying so does not make a statement a fact.

Why did you want me to read that thread? though it was intresting reading.
You didn't try to convince me to believe evolution? Because that would be pointless.

Religious zeal cannot be changed since it is based on entirely subjective opinions and feelings. What I find important is that you understand the difference between arguments from facts and arguments from religious belief, and stop confusing them in this thread.

[Lestat]

@ Masa: though CE's title is "Board Bimbo", she's actually closer to the Resident Biomedical Scientist. She has (if I'm not wrong) a Ph D in this field and is still active in this field as a researcher and if she doesn't know something in the bio-medical field, she'll have someone close at hand that does. So her opinion counts, at least for me. And though her style by moments can have a know-it-all quality, in certain regards that is because she does know it all. The fact that her opinion overlaps for great part my own is of course totally irrelevant. I retire now from this discussion, because I think CE has more or less said what I wanted to say and much better worded.

[Masa]

Well It seems pointless to post anything more here since I don't even fully control the language and I think I've made my personal opinion clear.
(and I've already reached exalted membership )

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Personally, I think it is a broken concept to test how something will react for humans on another species. Given the vast differences in how one medication can affect the many people in one species, why bother to test it on another species?

Oh, and here I was going to quote this to bring that up, but you did. Yeah, maybe I should invest in coffee, that nasty vile stuff. But I clearly need a wake-up call.

I agree, Lestat; I always held CE's opinion in high regard. She has a way with words and facts that commands attention. Sadly, with my concentration the way it is, I usually have to skip over some of CE's more verbose posts.

[Aztaroth]

So the discussion can't be taken anywhere further? Too bad, this is some great stuff for my school project on animal rights