Sharks have been around longer.
Ants are more numerous.
Bacteria evolve in response to changing conditions more rapidly.
Phytoplankton have a greater effect on the environment.
Lampreys show a greater loyalty to their mates.
Humans choose their criteria for handing out ‘Best Species’ award the most carefully.
Daniel
Seriously. In evolutionary terms, we are definitely not the best. I’d say rats and (many) insects are doing better than we are.
Humans build complex civilizations.
Humans create art.
Humans have been to the moon.
Humans build cathedrals, castles, aquaducts, and skyscrapers.
Humans figure out how to combat illness and disease; some become doctors.
Humans have a conscience (by and large).
Humans know right from wrong.
Humans help each other in times of need.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
(Aren’t you the clown who once said something to the effect that human beings are a blight on the planet? If not, I apologize, but I seem to remember something along that line out of you.)
Different clown, buddy! Want me to make a list of the humble ant’s accomplishments, or is this something all humans, including you, can do?
Point is, we look pretty great in our own eyes. So what? We don’t know how we’d look to a nonhuman sentience who may or may not value the same things we do.
Everyone is a bit player in everyone else’s play, and that holds true for species, too. Ants consider anthill exigencies to be far more important than all the laws of Hammurabi.
A little bit of humility, I think, serves us well.
Daniel
I bet if you asked a giraffe what criteria to use to determine the most advanced creature on earth, it would tell you “height”.
Fair enough. I apologize.
While I can’t really say I want you to make such a list, I have to confess I’d be interested to see how you seem to think their accomplishments would be greater than those I listed above.
Doesn’t all this really just boil down to saying that everything is relative depending on the point of view of the observer? There’s nothing new or remarkable about that.
(And just for the record, I’m not taking the stance that animals, and especially pets, are mere objects to be discarded when they begin to present a problem. I join wholeheartedly with the OP in condemning the likes of that dipstick Ficer67. We have many pets in our house and they truly are as members of the family. What I am saying is that the notion that lesser animals are somehow superior to humans is falacious.)
I don’t think anyone’s arguing ‘lesser’ animals are superior, just that it’s dumb/egoistical to value human life intrinsically higher than any other kind of life.
Greater according to what standards?
Yeah, it just boils down to saying that everything is relative depending on the point of view of the observer. Nothing new or remarkable, except that apparently some people, in their zeal to pat their species on the back, have forgotten it.
We humans are something special. But that’s just because everybody’s special. I don’t know how we can choose a criterion by which to say that our own species is superior all-round to any other species.
That doesn’t mean I value the life of an ant equally with the life of a person. It just means that I expect the ant to have an equally unbalanced valuing of life, and I’m okay with that.
Daniel
But LaurAnge, in the final analysis, if you could save only one or the other, who would you save in an emergency…an animal or a human? I think the answer to that question would pretty much describe why we “dumb and egotistical” types think of human life as being “higher” than other kinds of life.
I said intrinsically higher. Of course I would save a human life, but that’s not because I put a higher value on humans as a species, from a biological point of view.
What other reason WOULD there be for your choosing to save the human life except that you value it more?
Gah. My computer shut down as I was posting something briliant and witty.
But, basically, cricetus, I agree with your shades of gray comment. Why do we need to immediately jump onto polar opposite sides of something before we can talk about it? Maybe it’s just fun to be angry and self-righteous.
Elysian,
Come now. That’s really the most ridiculous thing anyone’s said so far. No one, and I mean no one lives according to that belief. I understand that our significance is relative and not absolute, but truly. The choice between a human and a blade of grass (or a dog and a blade of grass) is going to be the same for 100% of the human population. You don’t actually believe what you posted. If you did you would not be able to function on this planet.
Oh, and Laur, since neuroman retracted his statement about the ‘acme of evolution’, I think you’re fighting a straw man at this point.
No one’s arguing for the biological refinement of humankind above all else. I think everyone here arguing ‘value’ is doing so purely from a human-relative perspective, not a evolution-relative perspective.
Fair enough. But don’t you think, for most practical purposes, that this what pretty much everyone already believes to begin with? I would expect an ant, if it were capable of thinking in such terms, to believe it’s reality the more important one. The same with bacteria or cattle.
The thing is, in day-to-day human existence, the underlying knowledge that an animal’s POV that its species is most important is of virtually no significance. I think most people realize what you’re saying, it’s just that it has no real impact on day-to-day human life.
And another thing, wouldn’t progress grind to a complete halt if we were to try to take into equal account the POV of every species impacted by whatever action we take? What if no homes could be built because of the POV of the ants, wasps, worms and bacteria that it would impact? What if no plants could be eaten because doing so would eliminate food for other, equally valuable species of creature?
Human beings (or any other species for that matter) cannot survive without impinging on the quality of life of other animals. Nor, for that matter, can other animals themselves. So in light of that, wouldn’t it be rather a waste of time to go through life constantly reminding ourselves that we are just one more cog in the gian wheel of life and that we are no more important, relatively speaking, than any other species? It would, and so therefore we don’t – which brings us to why we look at things the way we look at things now, and the way in which you are being critical now to no good or useful purpose that I can see.
One of the reasons I value humans in general (aside from the fact that I am one) is because they are capable of displaying compassion.
When humans treat animals badly or dispose of them in a cavalier manner because humans are superior to animals they are, ironically, betraying that which makes them special.
I couldn’t agree more, Malthus. What a good point, especially in light of the OP.
Depends on the person, depends on the animal.
I suppose this makes me nuts, but if I had to choose between saving my dog, or saving a person I’d never met, I would save my dog.
This probably makes me a bad person. Should there happen to be a hell, I bet I’ll go there. However, my dog brings me more joy than any person ever has. He’s loyal to me in a way that a person can’t be. His entire existence is devoted to being nice to me, to playing with me, and to making me happy. He’s never done something just to be petty. He’s never decided to quit being my dog because a smarter/younger/prettier/richer owner came along. He doesn’t snore or hog the bed, or eat the last slice of pizza. He’s not writing a novel, but he knows the names of all his toys.
You better believe he’s gonna get the last bunk on my life boat. (Also, he’s very small, so I could probably save him, as well as a person, but I suppose that sort of ruins the hypothetical.)
Perhaps, but I don’t think so: it seems to me that most people believe humans are intrinsically more valuable than other animals. That was my point.
The impact it has is that it reminds us that other points of view exist. Not that we need to subsume all our interests to the interests of, say, cows, but that we need to remember that cows have interests and take those interests into consideration.
Through, for example, laws preventing cruelty toward animals. I submit that those laws are necessary not for the sake of humans, but for the sake of the animals they protect.
And that’s not an uncontroversial position: there are folks that believe anticruelty laws exist to promote human welfare, and that there’s no benefit from them for animals, since the idea of benefit for animals is logically absurd.
While they serve the purpose of improving human life, I think it’s not the primary good they do. I think that we need to remember that we’re bit players in other species’ drama, and that, more importantly, they’ve got a drama.
Daniel
I see your point, and it is well-taken. There is absolutely nothing in your last post that I disagree with.
Regards.
Thank you for so aptly expressing what I feel about my animal companions.
They’re not little furry people on four legs. They’re not my substitute children.
They’re living creatures with distinct personalities and emotions and it gives me great joy to interact with them.
I respect the fact that cats need to act like cats and dogs need to act like dogs.
Does that mean that they don’t have to confirm to basic house rules?
Of course not-until the lazy sods start contributing economically, what I say goes.
But I’m pretty easy going-pee and poop outside, don’t jump on the UPS man, no biting, stay off the couch and I won’t sniff your butt if you keep your nose out of mine.