Are humans just animals

Dread · February 2008

<div class="IPBDescription">And how it affects our morals</div>I've thought I've been an enviromentalist for pretty much all my life, but today an idea struck my head. If humans are considered to be just animals, why do we have this weird, universal motive to protect other species? I mean through out the entire existance of life on this planet, certain species have systematically wiped out other species just because they were superior in someway. This has been considered to be perfectly natural. So isn't it natural for humans to destroy other species? The thing is, we'll never be able to kill everything on this planet, not if we tried, so life will go on with or without humans. What does it matter which species dies and which survives? Obviously we have to protect flora/fauna that ensures our own survival(for example rain forests), but why should we care about whales or pandas or kangaroos? If they aren't strong enough to beat the ruling species, humans, isn't it their time to go?

I just thought I should get someone elses opinion on this and obviously Natural Selection forums seemed like the logical place <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Is my idea really retarded or do I actually(jebus forbid) have a point once in my life?

lolfighter · February 2008

Short answer: Because we like looking at fluffy critters.

Longer answer: Probably because we like biodiversity. In terms of evolution and natural selection, there's nothing inherently wrong with us mindlessly wiping out any species that can't compete with us, since that's quite often what happens.
The key word here is mindlessly, since "nature" as such is entirely mindless. It's a completely emergent system that runs on completely made-up and sometimes utterly nonsensical "rules" exactly BECAUSE it's completely mindless.
The difference, then, between us and other animals is that we can think about the consequences of our actions. A tiger thinks: "Hungry. Kill prey, eat prey." It doesn't consider that if it kills too many game animals, it may eventually run out of food and starve. In fact, this can happen in an unbalanced ecology with too many predators: Predation kills off most or all of the prey in the area, the bulging predator population suddenly loses 90% of their population to starvation.
Our insight into ecological systems allows us to put things into perspective. Take for instance the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo" target="_blank">Kakapo.</a> This unique species of parrot was driven to near extinction, and is now the target of intense conservation efforts to prevent the race from going extinct. It displays some common traits for specialised traits in geographically isolated regions: It became highly adapted to the specific circumstances and conditions of its habitat and features unique distinguishing features that set it apart from other parrots. It's superbly integrated and balanced with the ecosystem and food chain it lives in, but due to this high adaption and specialisation competed very poorly with invading species once its isolation was broken. When we try to preserve it as a species, we do this in recognition of its uniqueness and because we know that if left to its own devices it would go extinct due to the radically altered conditions in its natural habitat.

There are a lot of species that we currently have the power to wipe off the planet, to make extinct, and that list will only continue to grow, most likely only shrinking whenever we actually use that power (intentionally or not). That doesn't mean we have to. First off, no species deliberately destroys other species. When a species goes extinct, it's always for a reason, such as "rats ate all their eggs and nestlings" or "the particular plant they ate died due to the introduction of a new parasite/disease." Extinction in itself is not a motive, merely a side-effect.
We cannot claim that it is our destiny to supplant as many species as possible. That "destiny" was written by a system that is, as mentioned before, utterly mindless. That "destiny" is therefore not one we are bound to follow - it was conceived by something with absolutely no insight into its own rules, whereas we have a pretty good understanding of the fundamentals by now. Therefore, if anyone should write our "destiny" as rulers of fauna and flora, it's us. Which means that to the question "why should we preserve pandas," the answer "because we choose to" suffices.

Judeo-christian answer: God created earth, the animals and us. God made us kings of the animals. God wants us to be nice. A king who wantonly eradicates his subjects is not nice.

puzl · February 2008

Yeah, biodiversity is critical to our own survival. For example, if bees went extinct today, most mammals would be in serious trouble within 5 years. Bees pollinate 99% of all flowering plants, and the fruit of flowering plants sit fairly low on the food chains of mammals. Another example would be the preservation of the rain forests. A huge percentage of the drug industry is based off substances discovered in species of plant found in highly diverse ecosystems. The rain forests may hold wonder cures to not only the pathogens that currently threaten human life,but also for future diseases that have yet to emerge. By keeping a diverse ecosystem healthy we keep at our disposal one of nature's most productive biochemistry labs.

I think environmentalism needs to be rooted in pragmatic and logical choices, and not the random sentimentalism of the Zeitgeist. That isn't to say that there is no place for 'tree huggers' in environmentalism, but if it is to progress to a point of being useful for our survival, it needs to have empirical observations and tangible benefits.

Take, for example, vegetarianism. I think the large majority of Vegetarians choose their diet for either health reasons or out of sentimental reasons, but a growing number of people make the lifestyle change for environmental reasons.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Environmental" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Environmental</a>

For the purpose of this discussion, I don't think it is important to establish the truth of the above assertion. I think the general point I am making is that a growing number of people are making what they deem to be rational value-choices based on hard research.

Oh, and yes, Humans are just animals. Apes to be precise. Few scientist dispute this, but most fail to mention it to protect our very frail egos, as Darwin found out all too quickly. Even he avoided the topic in his first book, but was eventually forced to face the topic headlong in 'Descent of Man'.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Judeo-christian answer: God created earth, the animals and us. God made us kings of the animals. God wants us to be nice. A king who wantonly eradicates his subjects is not nice.</div>

I would agree with this, but from a different perspective. The successful cultures were the ones who learned a degree of respect for nature. Don't kill all the buffalo in one year - learn to take what you need - the more you spare the bigger the herd you will hunt next year. Etc. The remaining hunter-gatherer societies that we had a chance to study showed a profound respect for nature, but most of their 'customs' have benefits for their immediate survival.

lolfighter · February 2008

Actually, we're not apes, we just share a common ancestor with them. Or so I think I was told. Sounds like hairsplitting, but I believe the distinction is worth noting.

Dread · February 2008

I pretty much agree on everything you said puzl, but I kind of wanted to talk about the morality more. I mean like I said, obviously we need to protect the animals and plants that directly and inderectly benefit us. However what's your stance on animals and plants that, basically, have no reason to exist. Like say pandas. They are cute and fluffy but if they all died tomorrow, our lives wouldn't be altered by any meaningful way. So why must we protect "useless" animals? And why humans are supposedly evil if they destroy an entire species but if bears would hunt a certain species of deer to extinction, it would be natural? Survival of the fittest etc.

lolfighter · February 2008

Well, my point was that morality is a human invention, hence we're the ones who set the rules. So if we don't want to wipe pandas out, it's because we don't want to, not because anything demands it of us.

Aegeri · February 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 4 2008, 08:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669498"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, we're not apes, we just share a common ancestor with them. Or so I think I was told. Sounds like hairsplitting, but I believe the distinction is worth noting.</div>

We are (for full classification) bipedal primates in the Hominidae (great ape) family. We are apes, but we did not evolve from apes that are currently in existence today, Chimpanzees, Gorrilas and such, which represent groups that branched off our last common ancestor a considerable time ago.

Insane · February 2008

To expand on lolfighter's point; we are now, as a species where natural selection and survival of the fittest no longer apply to us in a traditional sense. As we have discovered and begun to understand the processes by which natural selection works, so too are we in a position to manipulate it. We practice artificial selection through the breeding of dogs or indeed by intervening when a species becomes endangered.

As such, it doesn't really matter whether a particular set of circumstances would be considered natural if it were brought about by another set of species, as we have the capability to analyse the consequences of our actions and, if we choose to, bring about a situation that goes against the selective pressures of "survival of the fittest".

So we have to look at different reasons for why we might choose to conserve species that have no direct or apparent benefit to us as a species. To start with, suggesting that pandas have "no reason to exist" doesn't actually mean anything. If the only reason for things to exist was because they had a measurable (by our current standards of measurement) effect on us, then there would be no reason for a good deal of things to exist at all, and yet they still do. It would be safer to assume that either nothing has any underlying reason or purpose for it existence and it just exists, or that there's a reason for everything to exist, and we just don't know what a lot of those reasons are yet.

If we take the standpoint that when humanity is involved, natural selection or survival of the fittest doesn't apply in the same way as it would without us, then it bears pointing out that a great deal of endangered species have that status as a result of our own actions as a species in the past. For example, tigers being killed due to the belief that they can be used to make fertility/virility drugs or potions. Looking at it this way, the fact that these species are endangered at all is due to our own actions in the past, and if we want to observe that natural order of things and allow natural selection to run its course, then we need to rectify the problems we've already caused.

And then of course on top of that there's issues already brought up about biodiversity and the fact that we as a species tend to quite like it.

Raza. · February 2008

Humans are animals (mammals).
The difference to most (all?) other animals is, that we can reflect on our own actions.
Sometimes there's no practical reason for saving a species, it's more the thought of being responsible for it's extermination. Hm, I'm not so sure this answers your question. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

Are humans just animals

Comments