I had a quite heated discussion tonight online about whether or not humans should be put in a group of themselves, or if they’re actually just animals with deeper thinking.
So I said this to him; Humans can make a written language, they can use and understand mathematics, they know of their own mortality, they can think and reflect and change their own emotions, and lastly understand themselves and the world around them on a whole new level compared to animals.
What I’m saying is, at one point in the evolution, a big light bulb just switched to ‘on’, and our learning went drastically faster.
From that point on, it was inevitable that we would end up knowing everything we do now.
So let’s look at dolphins, or cats or dogs.
Unless they have this “click” they will never learn anything new.
No matter how many times you teach the chimp to pick up his own bread, he will never think about what he’s doing, or more so, begin a love life with the bread. (Some people do.)
You see how complex humans are compared to animals?
I disagree, but the question you have to ask first is: For what purpose are you setting up the “groups”? I think they are most useful when they demonstrate genetic relatedness. Along those lines, I’d go in the opposite direction and put humans and great apes in the same Family (rather than the separate Families of Hominidae and Pongidae).
I’m with John Mace…what sort of “groups” are the OP talking about? If you mean biological kingdoms, as in animals/plants/cyanobacteria/protists, etc., then I don’t see any utility to the distinction.
Humans are not as different from other animals as animals are different from, say, mushrooms, so no, they should not be put in a different “group” from them. It makes no difference whether chimpanzees or dolphins (or mushrooms, for that matter) can love bread.
In a separate group for what purpose? Taxonomically speaking it would make no sense to separate out Homo sapiens from other animals any more than we are now.
Now of course legal classifications or moral classifications have their own logic. However, humans are animals. That’s a basic, inescapable fact. We share not only DNA or basic arrangements of the bones in our limbs, but also many features of the structures of our brains, and many of our behaviors and passions with other animals as well, especially with our closest relatives. The scientific facts of the world don’t lead in some obvious and inarguable way to one moral code, but any system of ethics which just ignores the facts isn’t going to get very far.
Over the last 40 years, we have been learning a lot about great ape societies and they (particularly chimps) have been discovered to share a lot of characteristics with humans. Among the more surprising traits have been xenophobia and warfare, many social patterns (e.g., non-reproductive sex), and limited toolmaking.
Clearly humans have much greater intelligence, but much of that intelligence seems to be focused on doing more of what apes do, only better.
Another issue that would have to be tackled is whether or not extinct Hominid species would be in this new “Kingdon”. Do Neanderthals get in? If not, why not? How about Homo ergaster?
There is a continuum of (extinct) species that readily bridges any gap between the great apes and modern humans.
I think Agent Smith from “The Matrix” (The First one) puts it best.
“… Humans are a virus…”
Smith Compares Humans to a virus, and basically does a good job selling the Idea that we are not animal, but virus. He cites that me have infected an organism (The Earth) reproduce and move on to new sites on the host once we have killed previous sites on the body.
Then again, You probably had this exact quote in mind when you formed your question…
The quote Smith makes on this is rather long, and through a copule of scenes. I think I have done a fair job sumarizing the esscence of the quote, if not, see the film (Who Hasn’t?) or Google it.
First should the new classification exclude human groups like primitive savages that don’t read, write, count or have elaborate mythlogies ? Homo Sapiens Literati vs Illeterati ?
Second should trained dolphins/chimps who are thaught basic words and complex training be also given a new category since they are “superior” ?
Biologically speaking we aren’t so different from our “cousins” so not much reason to make ourselves so much special. Our emotional and social tendencies are not that far from chimps.
I think we should be worried more about acting as something special rather than animals with weapons, technology and massive economies.
The OP included the statement, “So I said this to him; Humans can make a written language, they can use and understand mathematics, they know of their own mortality, they can think and reflect and change their own emotions, and lastly understand themselves and the world around them on a whole new level compared to animals”.
I recall seeing a documentary where one of the great apes in captivity, a female orangutang I believe, was taught to use language. It involved using flash cards which she could hold up but it shows she could use simply maths (count, add and subtract up to mid-single figures IIRC), had a concept of self and others, and could express her own perception of not only her emotions but also those of others.
I don’t see a whole lot of essential difference between the scope of those abilities and what you describe as essential features of humans that support your idea that they are not animals. As far as I see it is simply a matter of degree, and issue of ability in those areas if you like.
Regret I could not quickly find a direct cite but as a starting point, an index of ape research sites:
I’d agree with this. If you define a (purely conceptual) continuum of “intelligence” (whatever that is) wherein protozoa are at A and the smartest humans are at Z, it’s certainly true that the overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom will occupy the slots up to E, with a couple of outliers getting to F or G and possibly even H in extreme cases, while even the dumbest (non-impaired) humans won’t get much below S or T. There’s a vast difference in ability, primarily defined by the leap of abstraction, but it’s hard to argue that it isn’t just a highly advanced form of generalized thinking.
Really, that’s the only thing that sets us apart. “Lower” life forms (I use the term advisedly) use tools, count and do basic math, communicate using particularized syntax, and so on. Our skeletal structure indisputably ties us to our ancestral forms (check out a whale’s “hand”). Ditto our digestive tract, cardiovascular system, neurological makeup, all the way down to our DNA. We are creatures of our world.
And more than that, I personally think cognition is somewhat overrated. Yes, it’s allowed us to dominate the planet and build cities and compose symphonies and land on the moon and everything else that your typical beaver isn’t even able to dream about. But in my view, I don’t think people are as rational as we believe ourselves to be; I look at our intellectual capacities, and civilization in general, as hardly more than a thin veneer over a vast sea of biologically determined drives and instinctive behavior. We are able to create post hoc rationalizations for the choices we make, but at root I don’t see us as being motivated by much more than the desire to breathe, eat, fuck, and shit how we please. In that respect, the only thing that separates us from dogs and dolphins is that as far as we know we’re the only species that can write a song about those desires.
I pretty much agree with Cervaise. And I don’t understand why it even matters. Are we afraid the dolpins or apes are laughing at us for being animals too?
We are definitely animals. Just because we’ve developed certain traits and abilities that other animals don’t appear to have doesn’t mean we’ve somehow evolved into a different life-form.
Look at it in the simplest way. If you cut up a human body (I’m not suggesting this) what do you have? Meat, bones, fat, organs. What do you get if you cut up any other animal?
You’re joking, right? The Earth is not an organism. We haven’t moved on to new sites aside from a couple of landings on the moon. We have nothing in common with viruses in any way that counts. The only reason Smith’s comment has any impact is that it’s a metaphor for how aggressive people are. Although animals can be plenty aggressive, and his comment about ‘every organism except humans reach a natural equilibrium with their environment’ strikes me as totally wrong.
Technically, Smith said “mammal”, not “organism”. He was still wrong about us being not so much mammals as viruses, though - even if he were just speaking metaphorically.
Or, given that most life is bacterial, we could simply group the oddities of animals, plants, and fungi as Eucaryotes…Eucaryote sapiens.
Agree. Smith made it sound like animals desire harmony with their environment whereas the reality is that the environment beats back any species that gets too big for its niche. Humans are just at lot better at fighting back (at least in the short term, geologically speaking).