Humans are NOT superior to the other species.

[darkangel218]

I'm sick and tired of all this "bible" gargle that we as humans have some sort of entitlement or superiority over the other species. Well, guess what. WE FUCKING DON'T! They have just as many right to live and fend for themselves as we do. We took over this planet, destroying it lil by lil. When humanity will take reponsability for our abuse, then maybe we can sit and judge and condemn other species.

.

[HappyMe]

1. What bible gargle are you talking about?

[darkangel218]

3. Where they claim "god" created animals to serve humans.

I can't quote since Im nor versed in that garbage.

[DreamGypsy]

13. Search on "dominion over animals" - pretty creepy if you ask me.

[life long demo]

68. I guess I always throught there was a difference between

dominion and domination.

[DreamGypsy]

82. Not much difference in the definitions...

Definition of DOMINION
1: domain
2: supreme authority : sovereignty
3plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy
4often capitalized : a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state
5: absolute ownership

Definition of DOMINATION
1: supremacy or preeminence over another
2: exercise of mastery or ruling power
3: exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence
4plural : dominion

[LanternWaste]

74. Almost as creepy as "stewardship"

Almost as creepy as "stewardship"

[truebluegreen]

83. At least "stewardship"--a more accurate translation I believe--

has the connotation of caring for something, as opposed to lording over it.

[HappyMe]

17. So we shouldn't ride horses,

or have any pets? If you have some land and space, we shouldn't have a chicken coop or keep a couple of cows?

[darkangel218]

35. I havent said that.

Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Humans sometimes have children for the same reasons others have pets.
We need food, so chicken coops are fine. Because a wolf in the wild would eat you and want more too, afterwords!! I'm not refering to that.

I'm refering to some shooting animals for fun, using them in sports and hurting and killing them with no specific purpose. Shooting them for being "vermin", as i just saw in anoter thread a few secs ago ( someone claimed he/she shoots racoons )
Killing their HABITAT!! THEN SHOOTING THEM, WHEN THEY TRY TO FIND FOOD ON OUR TURF!!
We use more than we need, we abuse this planet.

It will all culminate with our own demise. Since we are too fuking stupid to change our ways.

[Drahthaardogs]

154. You do realize that your op pretty much contradicts this argument, right?

I mean, if I am an animal, and not superior to other animals, than as such, I have no obligation to conserve their habitat, I can kill them as I want for invading my space, and I have no moral obligation to do otherwise.


Male lions kill hyenas for sport, and do not care. Have you ever seen a cat in a pigeon coop? They will kill until their blood lust is satiated.

Only when I am superior do I have an obligation to conserve, to preserve, and to manage.

[darkangel218]

155. Than how do you explain the pollution and exctinction of other species??

If we are so "superior" and we "protect and conserve" , how come is not happening??

You're the one who needs to reconsider your post, not me.

[rug]

2. I could consider this more closely if the dog wasn't humping my leg.

[darkangel218]

4. :p

Pet him/her for me x

[randome]

5. LOL!

Laugh of the day!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[pinboy3niner]

6. !!!

[Puzzledtraveller]

7. What rug said

Wait, I don't have a dog.

[randome]

10. And...second laugh of the day!

And a DUzy, too! I think both those posts should go together!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[panader0]

11. Someone has to say DUzy

[HappyMe]

20. DUzy!

Well played.

[susanna]

130. DUzy, says me... n/t

[randome]

8. We are the only species that can consider whether we are superior or not.

So yes, we are. That doesn't mean I buy into the Bible crap but we are more than animals.

Most of the time.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[darkangel218]

14. Bullshit!! we are not!!

What makes you superior or more entitled to surviving than say a cat?? We use our inteligence to abuse this planet, enslave and destroy other species without remorse.
We are biological beigns , just like our fellow animals and plants. What we do to/with them is despicable.

[galileoreloaded]

22. with the capacity to engage higher functioning.....it is a distinction. nt

[HappyMe]

25. I'm sorry.

But if it came down to a cat's life or one of my sons, or my granddaughter - too bad for the cat.

[darkangel218]

47. A mother lioness will think the same for her cubs.

You're missing the point. It's not about defending your family. It's about abusing and destroying other species for no reason other then entertainment, comfort/abuse, and entitlement.

[HappyMe]

48. People have been hunting and fishing since forever.

That isn't likely to stop.
I'm not disagreeing about lions, elephants, tigers, whales, dolphins....

[darkangel218]

52. They "hunt" and "fish" too. Like i said, thats not what i was refering to.

[randome]

28. We use our intelligence for other than abuse, you know.

Our ideals, while not always realized, put us in a unique position. We create and free others from slavery as well as destroy and enslave. We hope to rescue this planet from our self-centered endangerment of it but that doesn't mean we are equal to or less than a cat.

In fact, domesticated animals -cats included- would not exist were it not for us.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[darkangel218]

59. I dont disagree with you on that.

But we do more damage than good. We should love, respect, and protect all other species just as much as we protect ourselves.
Do you honestly see that happening??

[randome]

67. Not as much as I would like to see.

The biggest obstacle to having a better society is our population. We have too damned many people in this country and in this world.

The more people, the more they try to stand out. The more they try to stand out, the more shortcuts and bribes are undertaken until corruption is allowed to gain a foothold.

Reduce our numbers and I think we'd be kinder to the environment because we'd stop fighting each other over resources. And by 'resources', I mean position, money and fame.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[darkangel218]

70. Agreed 100%.

But it will never happen.

[randome]

75. Nature might be running out of patience, though.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Deep13]

58. The answer is that only a human would be conserned with such things...

...and only humans who live in abundance. You can bet the Syrian refugees who are begging in the street where I am now are not worried about whether the feral cats of the town have as much right to live as they do. Questions of life and death stop being open questions when they are no longer hypothetical. Put more bluntly: first world problem.

[pinboy3niner]

18. And we are the only species that spends hours and hours watching kitteh videos

[quinnox]

9. So, do you feel pet owners are in effect, like slave owners?

Should all pet owners set their pets "free", instead of keeping them?

It has always been incomprehensible to me how some can put animals on the same level or higher than other human beings. I once did a thread talking about how many dog owners seem to do this, and got a lot of crazed defenses and self-righteous outrage about it from dog lovers.

[joeglow3]

27. Sad that our country had laws protecting animals before child labor laws

[life long demo]

71. I think either the SPCA or maybe Humane Society was formed

to protect both animals and children, way back in maybe 1800's. You are invited to correct my facts as I am a little foggy on it.

[LanternWaste]

79. SPCA was created in Britain by PM William Wilburforc

SPCA was created in Britain by PM William Wilburforce in the 17th century; Wilburforce was also the fulcrum in the ending the British slave trade, instituting child labor laws, universal access to education, and a host of additional organizations that predated the concept of progressivism.

[alp227]

119. Don't animals belong in the wild? n/t

[Brickbat]

12. Nature is cruel.

[darkangel218]

19. Correct. But let nature be nature!!!

Don't use the excuse that killing and exterminating other species " for the good of humanity" is right, because it fucking isn't.

[Brickbat]

23. "For the good of humanity"?

I seem to have missed that argument.

[darkangel218]

39. You refer to as nature, when we go and destroy habitats and forests??

It's not "nature", its human greed. Get it right.

[Dr. Strange]

64. How can it not be nature?

We're every bit as much a part of nature as every other animal. Complaining about human greed makes as much sense as complaining about tree greed. Trees do what trees do because they're trees. Humans do what humans do because we're human--unless you want to put humans on some position of superiority by suggesting that we can choose to say no to our greed.

[darkangel218]

69. Then there is something wrong with us, if we feel its ok to destroy the planet for our silly shit.

Do you need a huge mansion and 10 cars? Do you need nuclear plants to power your estate, so that you can run your 50 seat private theater?
QDo you hunt wild animals for fun?
Maybe you don't, but many do.
It's not that use what we need, we abuse this planet until the day it will rid of us.

[SidDithers]

72. The planet was here long before humans...

and will be here long after humans have gone.

The planet will survive just fine, with or without humans.

Sid

[truebluegreen]

84. With what kind of life on it, or any? nt

[SidDithers]

89. Yup. With some kind of life on it...

It may not be us, or our close descendants, but it will be life.

Sid

[truebluegreen]

93. If we manage to engender runaway warming, probably not.

Bacteria maybe.

I feel so much better.

[SidDithers]

95. Earth abides...

If life can survive the meteor at the end of the cretaceous period, it can survive runaway warming too.

Some life, anyway.

Sid

[truebluegreen]

97. As I said

with runaway warming the survival of bacteria wouldn't even be assured. Think Venus. At some point carbon in the atmosphere led to warming that boiled away the oceans. Surface temperature is 800F....

Hooray for us! We have the power to turn a remarkable blue-green planet into a hell hole! Yea! I don't consider that "abiding", unless you have a particular fondness for space rocks.

[Dr. Strange]

76. Does a tree need more branches?

Does a cat need to bat around a mouse until it drops dead from exhaustion?

Those are questions that trees and cats don't mess around with. They do what they want, when they want.

I, unlike cats, don't hunt for fun. I base some of my actions on the effect that it will have on the environment. Even though we're part of nature, we can think about our part in nature, and act accordingly.

And like it or not, that is superior to the animal/plant that just consumes whatever resources it wants without thought.

[darkangel218]

96. Superior perheps from your personal exeprience. Can you say the same for your fellow humans though?

[Pelican]

159. How about "silly shit" like electricity and modern medicine....

Let me guess, it matters which category you think it falls into.

[Deep13]

98. So, are we part of nature or not? nt

[cali]

15. yeah, we are. we may well not be better than other species but

in the sense of dominance, we hold a superior position over every other species. not saying that's a good thing, but it is a fact.

As for other species having just as many rights as humans, nah, that's wrong too. In your head, sure. Under law almost any place on the planet? Not so much.

[darkangel218]

21. Thats the point. The way humanity is going about treating othet species is downright messed up.

[randome]

40. Maybe, if we can get real climate change action in place, it will inspire us...

...to do more for the environment in general.

I, too, lament what is happening to the polar ice caps and the species it threatens.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nika]

16. This is true. dolphins and whales have larger and more complicated brains than human beings

They communicate and operate in a very ethical manner. I would say that although we have a leg up on them with our hands and ability to manipulate our environment, their species are older and have all the trappings of intelligent species.

[X_Digger]

43. "Operate in a very ethical manner"?!? You don't know your cetaceans, do you?

Rape, murder, infanticide, killing for fun- all are practiced by some cetaceans.

[randome]

78. I knew that was basically correct, I just couldn't remember exactly what I'd read before.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nika]

126. I know that like us, dolphins can be just as conflicted and do exactly what you say.

For example I remember one film I watched of two dolphins brutally abusing a female from another species of cetacean. But where they do exhibit ethical behavior, they are no worse then us in how they comport themselves. I am well read on dolphins and a student of John C. Lilly and believe in how he postulated cetacean intelligence to be.

[X_Digger]

131. So they're ethical because they do unethical things? Umm...

I think there's a hole in your logic there.

[Nika]

132. Humans are generally ethical beings who do unethical things.

I think mt logic is fine.

[X_Digger]

133. Doing 'unethical' things is no proof of being an ethical being.

Anthropomorphism at its finest.

[Nika]

136. Tursiops truncatus, the bottle nosed dolphin is very strong and has 188 sharp conical teeth

It could easily shred a human being yet they take pains to not harm humans. Not even when provoked have dolphins attacked humans. There are cases where dolphins cooperate with human fishermen, driving in schools of fish, and they do not panic when trapped in the nets knowing they will be released, and that the fishermen will share the catch with them.

Dolphins have also saved human beings from drowning. John Lilly once told of a case where a baby dolphin was angry at a person and swam toward him at ramming speed. The mother of thee baby butted the baby stopping it from harming the human swimming with them. I believe -- and so do many others -- that dolphins have an ethical stance against harming humans.

Tursiops truncatus also has a larger brain and much more cortical surface area. an example of a test they do better than humans is one where they repeat back nonsense sounds back and can remember far longer strings of them then human subject can. There are many more tests like that one they show a strong intellectual ability.

I have read about and followed cetacean issues a long time. You are not going to convince me I am wrong, but if you actually have substantive proof we are actually smarter, let's hear it. I believe intellectually, we do not match many species of cetaceans.

[X_Digger]

137. We're talking ethics.

You are ascribing complex thought that is not borne out by empirical data.

The ability to learn and remember is present in many creatures, from flatworms on up. The ability to problem solve is present in a smaller set. The ability to separate 'self' from 'other' is present in an even smaller set of animals. The ability to empathize, and put oneself into the 'shoes' of another an even smaller set.

Having an animal not do something that it could is no indication of ethics. My dog could jump up off the couch and tear out my throat before I could stop him. That doesn't mean he has ethics.

Dolphins raping humans, but not eating them doesn't prove that dolphins are ethical. Nor does having dolphins save humans.

More anthropomorphism.

[Nika]

142. I submit they communicate, have culture, and by virtue of that operate within ethical guidelines

they have developed. This is no anthropomorphism on my part. It's more like a case of species-centric thinking on your part. Sorry to have to tell you this, but our species is hardly the smartest one on the planet, just one of the smarter, and definitely the most ruthless and violent one.

[X_Digger]

143. No, that's anthropomorphism.

I don't think you quite grasp the concept of ethics (and culture, apparently) and how one would go about proving the presence or absence of such.

[Nika]

144. I grasp the concepts of culture quite well, thank you.

I also see we are not going to agree on anything, here. I don't project human traits into dolphins, they stand alone as highly intelligent mammals with a language and culture whether humans are around of not.

[Lucinda]

44. Yep.

[geek tragedy]

24. We are superior, and it is precisely because we are superior that we have an obligation

to preserve the other species.

Lions, elephants, alligators, moose--they have no obligation to other species or members of their own species, because they are limited and are without that kind of conscience.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. This.

We're the only ones who worry that others may go extinct.

[panader0]

26. "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself,

A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever feeling sorry for itself."---D.H. Lawrence

[Major Nikon]

29. What other species do you know that can shave their own balls?

[azurnoir]

57. well yes there's that however

most other species can *cough* 'self clean' their own balls- so it all equals out in the end

[joeglow3]

30. You comingle two different points

We are very much superior to all other species. However, how we use that superiority is poor.

The very fact that you posted this shows our superiority

[darkangel218]

41. Fuck if i feel superior. Speak for yourself. nt

[joeglow3]

51. The fact that you had the coherent thoughts and ability to type this message make it so

You trying to sound like a philosopher doesn't change that.

[darkangel218]

54. Im not trying to sound like anything, im making a freaking point!

I do nor feel superior to the other species because of my communication capabilities. Other species can run faster than me. Others can climb higher. Others can walk upside down on walls. Others can live in the oceans.

That was my whole point, we are NOT superior and we shouldn't abuse and destroy other species because of our delirious entitlement.

[joeglow3]

88. Do you lecture other species when they destroy a species?

[darkangel218]

94. They only destroy other species for food or shelter.

Very few deviations from that.

We destroy other species for nothing else but greed.

Pretty HUGE difference I would say.

[nessa]

105. You didn't answer his question. Would you lecture a cat, to try to stop it from hunting for fun?

Some claim cats are destroying certain bird species, would you have a chat with the cat about that? If not, why not?

Maybe because the cat doesn't understand nor care.

[darkangel218]

115. Cats hunt for "fun" because most dont need to eat what they catch anymore

Since we have domesticated them.
Cats in the wild do eat what they catch.

Shooting animals solely for fun is silly, cruel and disgraceful.

[nessa]

120. I agree about shooting animals for fun.. but why can't we explain to any cat that he/she....

doesn't need to kill for fun. If they are equal to or even superior to humans then certainly we should be able to talk some sense into at least one of them.

[Sissyk]

31. i take it you don't have pets, then?

Or, don't tell me! You're a kitteh playing a human on the internet.

[darkangel218]

73. Huh??

[Neoma]

100. My cat rules me, I already know she's superior.

[Tree-Hugger]

32. My leg fell asleep while reading this

I am sitting in an awkward way, but my cat crawled on my lap and she's all comfy and purring. So, I'm stuck here. I'm not sure she believes humans are superior.

When the Bible says I have dominion over the land and the critters here, I take that to mean that I am in a position to take care of it, not rape and destroy the shit out of it.

[Arcanetrance]

33. Couldn't agree more we are just as much animals

and I would even say morally lower than the rest of the animal kingdom

[Nye Bevan]

34. Well I'm not the one who drinks from the toilet. (nt)

[darkangel218]

42. Yah, because you force your dog to be indoors.

We domesticated them. Their ancenstors would be drinking from pond and rivers.

[Neoma]

102. Humans are domesticated.

I dare say, from dogs.

[SidDithers]

36. "fend for themselves"...

and when they fail to fend for themselves, against a more advanced species?

Can't fight evolution.

Sid

[alp227]

118. We humans can control ourselves. We aren't like other predators. n/t

[BlueJazz]

37. The only thing that matters to most Humans is a mirror.

[HardTimes99]

150. Awesome. Almost snuck right by me. Reminiscent of Ecclesiastes:

"Vanity, vanity, all is vanity."

Best and most truthful comment in this thread, imho.

My sincere compliments.

[BlueJazz]

152. Why thank you. That's very kind of you.

[DonCoquixote]

38. we may still be a part of nature

and have to learn respect for nature as it is what sustains our life,
but we as humans have sentience, and sentience beats anything the animals have.

[darkangel218]

49. So we should use our counciosness to abuse and destroy others??

You think we are entitled to that only because we are " sentient" beigns?? Dolphins have been found to be sentient as well, they recognise themselves in mirrors.
But thats not the point. Being somewhat biologically superior doesn't entitle us to be abusers of this world. We don't own it. We are merely guests on this planet.
Keep doing what were doing , and it will rid of us. That simple.

[DonCoquixote]

122. no, because abusing others

hurts us eventually, but there is no reason beyond that.
As tempting as it is to want to relate to mother earth, we cannot, because there may be no intelligence to relate to, and even if there was one, it might have wanted plastic.

The reason I tend to attack those who downplay humanity is because they often do so out of an imagined sense of what earth is, and what we are. They want to imagine some world that never was.

I do not need Gaia to tell me that I need to avoid ruining the world I am.

[hunter]

62. Whatever "sentience" is...

You say "sentience" is something humans have but animal's don't. But that's a tautology, it's defined in such a way that we can always move the goalposts. We can even move the goalposts to exclude other humans. I can see us building androids someday that are smarter than us, and stronger than us, more fun at parties, sexier, more than human in every way, and people will be claiming they are not sentient. (That story has endless variations in science fiction...)

One thing that sets humans apart is reading and writing. That seems to be a very recent innovation in story telling.

Other animals, in particular many of the cetaceans, may be story tellers too. We don't really know.

It's quite possible most humans are not very good at recalling stories accurately and passing them on to our children. Reading and writing may be an adaptation that compensates for this inadequacy. Those that forget history are condemned to repeat it. But humans still repeat a lot of ugly history even when it's written down.

In any case, I've met many, many sentient animals - dogs, horses, parrots, etc... Clearly "the lights are on and someone is home" even in the dimmest animals.

People are animals too, in every way.

[DonCoquixote]

123. I hope my grandchildren

get to make those androids, or become the sort of cyborgs that make human existence seem vanilla; they will probably need even need a God anymore, or his evil sidekick, Gaia.

[truebluegreen]

87. We are the only animal I know that fouls its own nest,

to the point where we threaten our own existence. That is not superior in any way, and it is morally repugnant.

[raccoon]

45. Mark Twain said once if you could get a cross between cats & people, it would improve people, but

be to the detriment of the cat.

[Dreamer Tatum]

46. I will stipulate that you're not. nt

[zappaman]

50. !!!

[darkangel218]

56. Do you hunt, zappaman?

[zappaman]

77. No. n/t

[darkangel218]

80. Ironic. nt

[zappaman]

81. If you say so. n/t

[darkangel218]

55. I am not, AND NIETHER ARE YOU.

[Deep13]

99. .

[Deep13]

53. "We took over this planet, destroying it lil by lil."

Just as an aside, I like how you used shortened words to make the end of the world seem cute.

[reflection]

60. Depends on what metric you use, I suppose.

In many ways we are clearly superior. In others, not so much.

[darkangel218]

66. Same for the other species.

But my point was, why are we abusing them just because we can??

[RiffRandell]

61. I thought self-delete was your best friend.

I see the point you are trying to make but perhaps you should relax and take a nap.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. We are only important because we tell ourselves we are.

Man is the only animal that blushes...or needs to. Mark Twain

[DreamGypsy]

65. Where is the unbiased evidence that humans are superior?

Definition of SUPERIOR
1: situated higher up : upper
2: of higher rank, quality, or importance
3: courageously or serenely indifferent (as to something painful or disheartening)
4a : greater in quantity or numbers <escaped by superior speed>
b : excellent of its kind : better <her superior memory>
5: being a superscript
6 a of an animal structure : situated above or anterior or dorsal to another and especially a corresponding part <a superior artery>
b of a plant structure : situated above or near the top of another part: as (1) of a calyx : attached to and apparently arising from the ovary (2) of an ovary : free from the calyx or other floral envelope
7: more comprehensive <a genus is superior to a species>
8: affecting or assuming an air of superiority : supercilious

Sure, we humans like to believe that definitions 1 and 2 obviously apply to our species over all others, but we stack the deck with criteria that we think are important. My dogs are thoroughly disgusted with my lack of olfactory sense - they have to lead me to the active gopher holes, then wait while I fiddle with one of my clever 'tools' to put in the hole, instead of just digging down and chomping on the critter.

Humans as a species can certainly be characterized as "serenely indifferent" - to the fate of their fellow humans, to the health of the planet on which they live, and to the survival of other species. I, for one, am unsure where this quality places us on the true scale of superiority.

We certainly aren't greatest in quantity. There are far more bacteria in each of our bodies than there are human cells. And the powerhouse of each human cell, the mitochondria, is just an evolved eubacterium that took up residence in some great, great, great ancestor of ours.

And as to "supercilious", I think some of the replies in the thread pretty demonstrate an affectation and assumption of an air of superiority.


Richard Dawkins has provided another viewpoint on human (and other animal) superiority in the final rendezvous with our human evolutionary ancestors in his book the Ancestor's Tale. Here is what the bacterium Thermus aquaticus
has to say about our species:

Look at life from our perspective, and you eukaryotes will soon cease giving yourselves such airs. You bipedal apes, you stump-tailed tree-shrews, you desiccated lobe-fins, you vertebrated worms, you Hoxed-up sponges, you newcomers on the block, you eukaryotes, you barely distinguishable congregations of a monotonously narrow parish, you are little more than fancy froth on the surface of bacterial life. Why, the very cells that build you are themselves colonies of bacteria, replaying the same old tricks we bacteria discovered a billion years ago. We were here before you arrived, and we shall be here after you are gone.

Thanks for the post, da218. Refreshing.

[LanternWaste]

85. I certainly won't argue that that we better or worse or equal to animals

I certainly won't argue that that we better or worse or equal to animals (as every word in that sentence requires a specific and valid definition to allow everyone to be on same page. e.g., even the word "better" is subjective and biased), and far too many want to pretend to be more clever than we really are in these cases rather than simply discuss the issue.

I do however believe that as the creatures with the greatest intelligence, greatest creativity, and greatest capacity to exert our dominance and will over all other animals, we also have the greatest responsibility to (at the very least) to maintain an appropriate amount of stewardship over those animals. And in that, we both dramatically succeed in many cases, and dramatically fail in others.

I am generally optimistic-- as humans have socially and culturally evolved, we've picked up a few rather good concepts along the way (though it's taken a while). The concept of 'responsible stewardship' over the planet being among the most recent, and among the most needed in the post-industrial age.

Hopefully, we'll keep maturing emotionally and culturally without too many set-backs along the way.

[CrispyQ]

86. Jim Mason writes about what I think you're trying to express.

An Unnatural Order: Roots of Our Destruction of Nature
by Jim Mason

http://www.amazon.com/An-Unnatural-Order-Destruction-Nature/dp/1590560817

A review from The Library Journal:

This is one of a number of recent books that trace both environmental destruction and social oppression to the Western world view that sets humankind outside of, above, and in conflict with nature. What makes this work unique is the emphasis he places on the relationship between human beings and other animals as both explaining and symbolizing our dysfunctional way of life with its built-in patriarchy, misogyny, and racism. "Dominionism" justifies merciless exploitation of the earth and its creatures for human wealth and pleasure, but it has left a deep psychic wound. In pursuing his argument Mason (coauthor with Peter Singer of Animal Factories , LJ 6/1/80) piles up powerful and provocative examples and insights. He is less successful in convincing the reader of the sufficiency of his overall thesis. Recommended for libraries with patron interest in animal rights, feminism, or environmental ethics.
- Joan S. Elbers, formerly with Montgomery Coll., Rock ville, MD
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc

Highly recommended.

[onenote]

90. If I fall down a well, Lassie can go get help, but its humans that will save me

So, at least for some purposes, humans are "superior" to animals.

PS - I know that Timmy never fell down a well.

[glinda]

91. I think we are the aliens we have been searching for and do not belong.

[Quantess]

92. We don't deserve to live on our own planet,

based on how we have treated it.

We're just evolved primates who are apparently not quite smart enough to take proper care of our own home.

[Neoma]

103. I think it's more of a cultural problem than an overall human problem.

If you think of the people who want to fuck up the world as much as possible so that Jesus will come back...

[Quantess]

107. That, too. But I see it more of a problem with short term selfishness,

that doesn't really have anything to do with religion. It's the "I'm gonna get mine so fuck y'all" attitude. Sorry about the language, but that really says it. Humans are really too selfish for our own good. Unbridled capitalism is a problem, here. When money and profit is king, the earth and other life forms get trashed.

Add insult to injury, as though that wasn't bad enough, then yes we have these self-destructive religious nuts who can't wait for Armageddon. They have such dull lives they actually look forward to meeting their maker.

[Neoma]

108. Jane Goodall calls the "but I have so little impact!"

Me-ism. I think selfishness can be lumped onto that word too. Me, me, me...

[jmg257]

101. Maybe not, but I certainly enjoy a few when served between 2 pieces of bread. nt

[Quantess]

110. Human meat? ew!

Is it true that human meat tastes weird? What kind of dressing do you use? Is it like the Arctic Circle special sauce, like a mix of ketchup, mayo, and relish?

[darkangel218]

114. lmao!!!!

[demosincebirth]

104. Look around you. Who's smarter your dog or you. All they can to do is bark and try and hump

your neighbors dog.

[xchrom]

106. Do less smart humans have less value? Nt

[bike man]

109. When your pet ferret (or whatever) is sick, do you take it to a dolphin (to which you are not

superior, according to your OP), or to a vet - who is a human?

Imprudence when dealing with other life forms is not the same as equality, or even inequality.

[Quantess]

111. True, but you have lost sense of the bigger picture.

We humans are destroying our own home.

[flvegan]

112. I see you've met DU's denial brigade.

I'm just glad you didn't use either of the "v" words.

[liberaltrucker]

113. Get back to me when you have a discussion about quantum physics with a chimpanzee

nt

[darkangel218]

116. Get back to me when you can physically do what some animals do.

Can you just flap your arms and fly? Can you live in deep water or under ground?
Being different and excelling in a particular aspect doesn't make one or the other more superior.

And our quantum physics hasn't got us too far, has it. Look at how much we have polluted the planet, especially in the past 100 years. You call that smart?

[DonCoquixote]

125. actually,we do stuff better

We have flown higher than any bird, swam deeper than any fish, and even touched the Moon.

The only reason pollution happens is because, while Humans can be smart, the masses are STUPID, and are manipulated. We had fuel engines that ran on waste oil back in the 1900's like the one built on peanut oil, the diesel. It is just that some people wanted to make a wasteful strcuture that preserved their arses (aka Lassiez faire capitalism)

[darkangel218]

149. Yah, by industrilizing the environment, polluting and destroying it.

Nice try.

[DonCoquixote]

156. Not always

A lot of pollution comes from the fact that we have not embrace green tech yet, whereas our cities have a lower carbon footprint than most country areas where people supposedly live with nature. Nice try

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. No, we build machines and fly. Then we build different machines and swim.

Then we build different machines and "see" in the dark.

[HardTimes99]

153. Then we form armies and destroy one another. "Progress?" Pfft! - nt

[Quantess]

117. Also, what does it matter what humans can do,

when we are trashing our planet for our own future generations? That is not smart.

We humans (some of us more than others) are destroying the planet because of short-term-gain. How "superior" are we, really?

[liberaltrucker]

139. Being intelligent does not equal being smart

While we explore the Solar System, we shit in our living room, so to speak.

You and DonCoquixote nailed it, except for one thing you said.
We are not "destroying the planet". Making it unlivable for us
and other species, yes.
But Planet Earth will be just fine, with or without us, for
the next couple of billion years. Life, in some form, will
go on. With or without us. What saddens me is that we
humans had the opportunity to develop this planet for the
benefit of ALL people and respecting Nature at the same time.

We failed miserably.

[ileus]

121. We had a blast fishing this weekend.

released every one...

[MNBrewer]

124. Agreed

Every species has just a long an evolutionary history on this planet as every other species (assuming life arose once).

[Warren DeMontague]

127. er, when we act with wonton disregard for anything except ourselves, we ARE 'fending for ourselves'.

Long-term, it's probably not a very good course of action, and we have other moral and ethical calculations that can enter into it, but arguing that things should proceed "naturally" because "nature"; well, for better or worse 'nature' has made us an extremely bad-ass species. That's not the Bible, that's reality. We are far and away the most deadly large animal on the planet.

[ErikJ]

128. Biologists confirm that. All species are of equal importance

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

In the grand scheme of life on earth, no species is superior to the other or has more right to exist. The only problem is one species becomes a danger to the existence all the others....including itself.

[RedCappedBandit]

129. Bacteria were here long before us and will remain long after we're gone.

[OldEurope]

134. Define "superior", please.

We are the only species that is able to change the future of all species on earth.

[darkangel218]

138. By exterminating them?

Lol, yes, we are indeed the most amazing, awesome species. Lmao!!!

[badtoworse]

135. How many dogs have made it to the moon?

[Demo_Chris]

140. That we are having this discussion kinda proves you wrong. nt

[AverageJoe90]

145. I'm no Fundie, but I can't help but disagree with that to a point.

Yes, other species have the right to exist.....but who else has built any civilizations, or created writing, thought, etc.? Even dolphins haven't gotten to that point yet, folks. What makes you think that primates, felines, or canines, etc. ever will in the foreseeable future?

And to the "we're just a bunch of glorified apes" crowd, I only have one thing to say: you have a right to believe what you believe, but you are simply dead wrong. Always have been, always will be.

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. Consider your natural world.

Step outside the front door and do a slow 360.

Yeah. Humans are superior to other species. We are the dominant life form on this planet and got here by being cleverer and more adaptable.

[HardTimes99]

151. Shakespeare, as is so often the case, gets right down to it

in Hamlet:

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? (II,ii)

Great thread, btw. Nice to take a break from L'affaire Snowden and Back to the 1950s (Voting Rights and Texas Misogynists)

[inwiththenew]

157. LOL

You started this thread on a computer (designed and built by humans) powered by electricity from a power station (designed, built, and maintained by humans) in a dwelling (designed, built, and maintained by humans) about how humans aren't superior to animals who by and large are only concerned with eating and reproducing.

Look at everything we have built from structures and societies to art and inventions and tell me any animals even comes close to us.

[Taverner]

158. Agreed. And Americans are NOT superior to the other peoples.