NationStates Jolt Archive

1. People argue that humans are superior to every other animal, that we are the only sentinet(sp) beings. Is this because it's true or because we, as a whole and individually, have big egoes? Is it because it's true or because we can't accept that some animals are smarter? Have we actually thought about it or just assumed it to be true? If it is true, then where was the evolutionary cut-off from animal to person? Is there one or are we also somewhat unintelligent creatures? After all, some people are dumb enough to run in front of moving cars or are the reasons chemicals come with warning labels on the containers. What defines human anyway? After all, we slowly evolved. When was the first human born? What's the difference between someone who is barely human and a creature that is very close?

2. Black and white co-exist. Good comes with bad. Benefit goes hand in hand with sacrifice. What are bkack and white but colors at opposite ends of grey? What is pink, but a light red or a reddish white? What is purple but a reddish blue? How can we determine when something is worth it? Is it worth killing an animal to save a murderer? Is it worth torturing an animal to save a rapist? Are hospitals worth it when they always run on power that hurts the environment is ways? Coal and oil powered plants produce green house gasses. Wind mills and solar panels need space. Hydro-electric dams damage aquatic ecosystems. Nuclear power plants produce nuclear waste, the deadliest substance known to man. Are they marvels that helped us advance or merely nails in our coffins, as they damage the planet we depend entirely on for survival?

3. Do we really have rights? Are some of them unneeded? Are guns needed? Is abortian? What about being able to freely travel? Are they really rights or just privillages? After all, guns can get taken away. You aren't allowed to interupt in court. Do we have any rights, other than the right to die? Do we really need these rights?

Well, we have rights because we created them, this is why they apply to humans and not animals. The planet we "wholly depend upon" is slowly losing that descriptor. We are learning how to survive without the planet's help.

We still need its water. We still needs its oxygen. We need its atmospheric pressure for our lungs to work. Our food needs said water. It's safe to say that we still pretty much depend on the earth completely.

We still need its water. We still needs its oxygen. We need its atmospheric pressure for our lungs to work. Our food needs said water. It's safe to say that we still pretty much depend on the earth completely.

Water you say? Let's just move to Enceladus and harvest it there!

I don't think that there is a non-earth source of harvestable H2O close enough for us to get to and use, even with the best of our pathetic technology.

1. People argue that humans are superior to every other animal, that we are the only sentinet(sp) beings.

I am not one of those people. Animals are arguably superior to humans because they don't destroy their own habitat.

1) we are superior to animals in terms of sheer success were top of the food chain, we are able to live anywhere and we could outlive Earth there is also the concept of imagination because my cat will never ponder flying nor will it make a beautiful picture

2) good and evil don’t exist sure you could say that we are polluting the Earth with our power but then again there is no other way to further mankind to the point of non-pollution without causing pollution itself

3) rights are things that the state promises to give you and protect though they can slow down progress in some aspects they generally mark that line where the government has gone too far which would be bad for society since a police state is very expensive to maintain

I am not one of those people. Animals are arguably superior to humans because they don't destroy their own habitat.

Humans are animals. Clarify your second contention.

Humans are a superior form of animal.

Humans > Animals through pwnage.

That is all.

1. People argue that humans are superior to every other animal, that we are the only sentinet(sp) beings. Is this because it's true or because we, as a whole and individually, have big egoes? Is it because it's true or because we can't accept that some animals are smarter? Have we actually thought about it or just assumed it to be true? If it is true, then where was the evolutionary cut-off from animal to person? Is there one or are we also somewhat unintelligent creatures? After all, some people are dumb enough to run in front of moving cars or are the reasons chemicals come with warning labels on the containers. What defines human anyway? After all, we slowly evolved. When was the first human born? What's the difference between someone who is barely human and a creature that is very close?


Humans are egocentric. We think 'us, first'. Which is why, the commonly accepted model for so long, was that the sun and stars circled the Earth.

We find it hard to conceptualise external views, and do so very reluctantly. So - in the absence of ABSOLUTE evidence of another sentient (or even superior) race, humans will always assume that they are 'top of the heap'.


2. Black and white co-exist. Good comes with bad. Benefit goes hand in hand with sacrifice. What are bkack and white but colors at opposite ends of grey? What is pink, but a light red or a reddish white? What is purple but a reddish blue? How can we determine when something is worth it? Is it worth killing an animal to save a murderer? Is it worth torturing an animal to save a rapist? Are hospitals worth it when they always run on power that hurts the environment is ways? Coal and oil powered plants produce green house gasses. Wind mills and solar panels need space. Hydro-electric dams damage aquatic ecosystems. Nuclear power plants produce nuclear waste, the deadliest substance known to man. Are they marvels that helped us advance or merely nails in our coffins, as they damage the planet we depend entirely on for survival?


There are no intrinsic 'good' or 'bad' forces. There is destruction and there is creation, and sometimes each requires the other.

As mere mortals experiencing it from a subjective viewpoint, we tend to prefer the 'creation' over the 'destruction'.. because we dislike the idea of our own finity.


3. Do we really have rights? Are some of them unneeded? Are guns needed? Is abortian? What about being able to freely travel? Are they really rights or just privillages? After all, guns can get taken away. You aren't allowed to interupt in court. Do we have any rights, other than the right to die? Do we really need these rights?

There are no fundamental rights. You cannot 'invoke your right to life' to stop that 82nd-storey-mis-step from killing you when the pavement finally comes up to meet you.

All our rights are gained for us through the words or swords of our 'people'... be they our families, our communities, our nations, or our advocates to the world.

First, are you a radical environmentalist?

Animals are inferior to humans because we are the only sentient beings, which is true. We are the only species which can ponder and create beyond using sticks to poke out ants from their nests. Anyway, I wouldn't see other animals having any more empathy for us than them. All animals are egocentric.

2. Black and white co-exist. Good comes with bad. Benefit goes hand in hand with sacrifice. What are bkack and white but colors at opposite ends of grey? What is pink, but a light red or a reddish white? What is purple but a reddish blue? How can we determine when something is worth it? Is it worth killing an animal to save a murderer? Is it worth torturing an animal to save a rapist? Are hospitals worth it when they always run on power that hurts the environment is ways? Coal and oil powered plants produce green house gasses. Wind mills and solar panels need space. Hydro-electric dams damage aquatic ecosystems. Nuclear power plants produce nuclear waste, the deadliest substance known to man. Are they marvels that helped us advance or merely nails in our coffins, as they damage the planet we depend entirely on for survival?

It's not worth killing or torturing animals to save murderers and rapists, because it's not worth me watching the grass grow to save them.
Human life has more intristic value than animal life. I don't support cruelty to animals and believe we should try to avoid it whenever possible, but I'd happily kill every animal on the planet if it would save human lives.

It’s been stated by scientists that the human hand actually evolved through the use of stone tools to make better use of this evolutionary pathway. Unfortunately, the ratio of evolutionary change to technology hasn’t kept up with the times. Today there are probably children of programmers that are developing evolutionary traits to make them better suited to use computers, but it might be a while before they become common traits and by then the technology will probably have changed again to make the trait useless. Other animals have been shown to have tool using traits, none have gone to the same lengths as humans though.

I’m not certain that all humans are smarter than all animals (just take a long look around you some day) but enough humans are smarter than the other animals to make a difference. Using language to keep records was probably the single most important development towards achieving ultimate supremacy in the animal kingdom (at least until nature decides to snuff us out).

For starts I can’t even see a bunch of deer hanging out and have a philosophical discussion. I graze therefore I am. But then not all people get to that point either.

The Bruce

Animals are inferior to humans because we are the only sentient beings, which is true.

Prove it.

Prove it.

You prove it :p I imagine primates and dolphins would have rudimentary intelligence, but I don't believe they have enough to have feelings or any other desire rather than survival, apart from a few exceptions. Anyway, there is no question that even the stupidest human is smarter than a monkey. Yes, even the ones who drink bottles of poision with the warning labels on.

As human beings we only have the rights we fight for. Only when leaders are coerced to accept human rights or by some miracle someone achieves a leadership position and pushes for human rights, do you get human rights. There is no divine lightning bolt to strike down wrongdoers. It’s do it yourself humanity. The Tribe must define itself by the treatment and management of its members. It’s up to the leaders and the people responsible for supporting those leaders to decide the treatment and management of the Tribe membership, under the stresses placed upon it both internal and external.

The Bruce

You prove it :p I imagine primates and dolphins would have rudimentary intelligence, but I don't believe they have enough to have feelings or any other desire rather than survival, apart from a few exceptions. Anyway, there is no question that even the stupidest human is smarter than a monkey. Yes, even the ones who drink bottles of poision with the warning labels on.

I'm being seruious, friend... you have claimed that humans are the ONLY 'sentient' species.

I'd like you to prove that claim.

Indeed, I'd like to see what you think 'sentience' IS, and how you think you COULD prove that humans are the only species to have it.

Many of the things that have long been considered as 'human' traits, have turned out to exist elsewhere in nature... from forms of sexuality and society, to creation of aesthetically pleasing structures that serve no other purpose, to understanding of progressions and identification of patterns.

Indeed, some animals even grasp rudimentary basics of OUR languages.

If you wish to make such broad statements, you SHOULD be prepared to back them up. Otehrwise, all you have is holow rhetoric... and an 'opinion' is not a fact.

I'm being serious too, I didn't see why I should prove my claim over yours. The issues you have mentioned- society, sexuality, ability to recognise patterns, creations of aesthetically pleaseing structures and ability to grasp basics of our languages are practised by some species, but usually not found all in a single species. The some animals which grasp basics of our languages are not some species, but some animals of those species, and not very many at that. I am inclined to think it's the result of an anomaly.
In retrospect, that probably was an ill-thought-out comment. There are definitely some species which display a measure of sentience, but eventually it doesn't add up to much. The intelligence they display is inferior to our own.

1) we are superior to animals in terms of sheer success were top of the food chain, we are able to live anywhere and we could outlive Earth there is also the concept of imagination because my cat will never ponder flying nor will it make a beautiful picture


top of the food chain: Are predators inherently superior to prey? If, on the great scale of creation, lithe otorongo surpasses the hart whose blood yet stains its jowls, where stands it against the nectar-fattened gem-fowl sweet guile of pug or jaws will never fell?
able to live anywhere: Anywhere? Anywhere on Earth? Under what circumstances?
could outlive Earth: Does longevity itself confer merit? Then upon Triops cancriformis - slaughter-minded Lazarus that it is - a thousand accolades should fall. In the end, we are dead.
the concept of imagination: What is "imagination"? What is "beauty"? These things are as much solely of the human realm as trigger-strung raptorial limbs are of the mantid's.

I guess we are superior in that we can wipe out entire species and we have developed "good" things that, when you truly think about it, are double-edge swords. Certain medical experiments that were successfully performed on animals(at their expense) have proved disasterous in people. Nuclear power has come to bite my state(Nevada) in the ass(via Yucca Mountain). Our pollution-causing cars are not only worrying scientists(what exactly will global warming cause?), but they also led to America's over-dependence on oil. People killed off the dodo. Now we have generations of people who are haunted by the question "what do dodos taste like?". We develop technology for NOW without considering the future. While we benefit, our decendents will have a f*cked up world full of crime, fear, and man-made environmental catastrophes that will dwarf Katrina on the 2004 tsunami. By far, we are the most selfish creatures. We may save lives now, but the side effects may kill many in the future.

As for the sentient thing, I doubt we are the only sentient creatures around. Sure, animals may not be able to speak our verbal language(though gorillas have been known to use sign language), how many of us know theirs? We may think that it's just a bunch of woofs and meows, but maybe they see ours as just weird grunts. creatures with poorer eyesight have little to no concept of mirrors. so what? Maybe it's because they don't depend on sight as much rather than them being dumb. I am not an SUV burning environmental nazi. I do not go out to forests just to hug the trees. I am just someone who actually thinks ahead of the next 30 years. I am just someone who wishes to know and discover. I ponder questions all the time. The only animals I ever hugged were my doggies. Anyone who states otherwise is clearly ignorant of this fact: I am me and they are not. Therefore, I know me and they do not.

I'm being serious too, I didn't see why I should prove my claim over yours. The issues you have mentioned- society, sexuality, ability to recognise patterns, creations of aesthetically pleaseing structures and ability to grasp basics of our languages are practised by some species, but usually not found all in a single species. The some animals which grasp basics of our languages are not some species, but some animals of those species, and not very many at that. I am inclined to think it's the result of an anomaly.
In retrospect, that probably was an ill-thought-out comment. There are definitely some species which display a measure of sentience, but eventually it doesn't add up to much. The intelligence they display is inferior to our own.

It's quite simple... this is a debate forum, and this is a debate thread.

You have made an assertion within the space of debate, which is believed by (at least one of the) other debators to be hollow rhetoric.

The 'burden of proof' is on you to provide evidence for your assertion.


Regarding the points you have made here, some of our nearest 'family' show capacity to emulate human behaviour in pretty much every field we have discussed... and, within the chimpanzee 'branch', it seems that there is a natural ability within the species as a whole, to be able to learn human languages.

One other point, of course... you claim that some examples in some species are capable of doing certain things, like, the fact that others in that species cannot, would somehow raise a question about the species as a whole.

Were that the case, surely, humans are incapable of generating magnificent architecture, works of art, and musical composition? After all, the few who excel in those fields ARE 'anomolies'.

It's quite simple... this is a debate forum, and this is a debate thread.

You have made an assertion within the space of debate, which is believed by (at least one of the) other debators to be hollow rhetoric.

The 'burden of proof' is on you to provide evidence for your assertion.


Regarding the points you have made here, some of our nearest 'family' show capacity to emulate human behaviour in pretty much every field we have discussed... and, within the chimpanzee 'branch', it seems that there is a natural ability within the species as a whole, to be able to learn human languages.

One other point, of course... you claim that some examples in some species are capable of doing certain things, like, the fact that others in that species cannot, would somehow raise a question about the species as a whole.

Were that the case, surely, humans are incapable of generating magnificent architecture, works of art, and musical composition? After all, the few who excel in those fields ARE 'anomolies'.
You forget that we are special. Since one man is a genious, we all are geniouses. We are the only sentient species, even though, by definition, many other species are sentient. Even though the assertion that we are the only sentient beings is hollow, unproven(not even any questionable proof), questionable, and proven to be completely incorrect by many people with the highest education and intelligence, it has to be right, right?:rolleyes:

You forget that we are special. Since one man is a genious, we all are geniouses. We are the only sentient species, even though, by definition, many other species are sentient. Even though the assertion that we are the only sentient beings is hollow, unproven(not even any questionable proof), questionable, and proven to be completely incorrect by many people with the highest education and intelligence, it has to be right, right?:rolleyes:

I guess.... what was I thinking...?

It’s been stated by scientists that the human hand actually evolved through the use of stone tools to make better use of this evolutionary pathway.
Scientists are always stating things, then other scientists, or even the same scientists state something contrary to the previous statement.
Human hands are not particularly specialised.

Unfortunately, the ratio of evolutionary change to technology hasn’t kept up with the times. Today there are probably children of programmers that are developing evolutionary traits to make them better suited to use computers, but it might be a while before they become common traits and by then the technology will probably have changed again to make the trait useless.
Such a conclusion indicates a likely misunderstanding of evolution. People do not 'develope' evolutionary traits in the sense you appear to be describing.

Using language to keep records was probably the single most important development towards achieving ultimate supremacy in the animal kingdom (at least until nature decides to snuff us out).
Writing is a very recent invention. Our complex cultural traits probably best explain our current situation vis-a-vis other animals.

I imagine primates and dolphins would have rudimentary intelligence, but I don't believe they have enough to have feelings or any other desire rather than survival, apart from a few exceptions.
Actually animals other than humans have shown a range of emotional traits, including altruism. Some primatologists have argued (quite convincingly) that at least some non-human primates display the trait 'theory of mind'.

Indeed, I'd like to see what you think 'sentience' IS,
A code word for the phrase "humans smart, everything else is 'teh suxor'.....";)

Programming, and other complex activities, are learned, not instinctual. Parents who are expert programmers might have a perfectly healthy child who is completely inept in the art of programming. I am tired of the "Edison invented the lightbulb, therefore the entire human race invented the lightbulb." argument as it is highly flawed. Dogs have been known to have a wide arrange of "human" emotions, have been proven to plan things from time to time, and might be able to manipulate certain people. Apes display even more human-like qualities, such as tool usage, bargaining, complex social orders, etc. Both of those, according to Webster, are sentient. Therefore, the absolute that animals are not sentient is completely fictional, as the exceptions I mentioned have made the absolute impossible. That's the thing about science. Absolutes are rare. Newton almost always mentioned exceptions. I'm sure Darwin and Einstein would have too if they had been able to get the information we have. Animals can be sentient. Some, like apes, wolves, and certain birds, are sentient with self awareness, "human" emotions, and the ability to learn and use learned knowledge. Others, like sponges, display no sentients and complex brain functions are next to impossible.

2. Black and white co-exist. Good comes with bad. Benefit goes hand in hand with sacrifice. What are bkack and white but colors at opposite ends of grey?

I thought black was the absence of color...or absence of light, summat like that.

1. People argue that humans are superior to every other animal, that we are the only sentinet(sp) beings. Is this because it's true or because we, as a whole and individually, have big egoes? Is it because it's true or because we can't accept that some animals are smarter? Have we actually thought about it or just assumed it to be true? If it is true, then where was the evolutionary cut-off from animal to person? Is there one or are we also somewhat unintelligent creatures? After all, some people are dumb enough to run in front of moving cars or are the reasons chemicals come with warning labels on the containers. What defines human anyway? After all, we slowly evolved. When was the first human born? What's the difference between someone who is barely human and a creature that is very close?
How about... we don't actually have a good definition of what sentience *is*? Sometimes our definition of "life" is hard enough, what makes us think our definition of what it means to be sentient works across situations?

A basic search of definitions on google leads me to one that says "Humans and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) are the two sentient species on earth." Which is wrong, because cetaceans is a order, not a species, but whatever. :P

2. Black and white co-exist. Good comes with bad. Benefit goes hand in hand with sacrifice. What are bkack and white but colors at opposite ends of grey? What is pink, but a light red or a reddish white? What is purple but a reddish blue? How can we determine when something is worth it? Is it worth killing an animal to save a murderer? Is it worth torturing an animal to save a rapist?
I'm sorry... but what on earth does killing an animal have to do with saving a murderer? And torturing an animal to save a rapist? Very confused here...

3. Do we really have rights? Are some of them unneeded? Are guns needed? Is abortion? What about being able to freely travel? Are they really rights or just privillages? After all, guns can get taken away. You aren't allowed to interupt in court. Do we have any rights, other than the right to die? Do we really need these rights?
If you don't want your rights, we'll be glad to take them away from you. Do you want them now? :p No, the universe doesn't guarentee you any rights. Your society does. Does that somehow make it bad to have a concept of rights?

People killed off the dodo. Now we have generations of people who are haunted by the question "what do dodos taste like?".
Sorry... but this is a bit silly. I personally know *noone* that wonders what the Dodo bird tasted like. :p