Grand Unifying Theory on Distinction Betwixt Man and Beast

I know we’ve all puzzled, as puzzlers do, as to the exact nature of the essential difference between human beings and those other creatures with whom we inhabit the glorious Earth.

Theories have been put forth and dismissed over the years, some bouncing off wildly like badminton shuttlecocks, others departing with reluctance and dismay, perhaps clinging like a piece of toilet paper to a hard-soled shoe.

Possessing no advanced degree I nonetheless presume to set forth my findings on the basis that such a theory of distinction should be simple and obvious, clear to the educated and layman alike.

Familial love was proposed long ago as the difference between man and beast, but gorillas and dolphins, and even turkeys display evidence of that (at least according to Mike Binkley).

Cats rescuing their kittens from burning buildings are clearly being heroic and self-sacrificing, so that can’t be it. Communication? Quite a few chimpanzees have shown an ability to master some symbolic language and have a handle on syntax at least comparable to that of our dear Leader. Plus Ernie, my cat, speaks quite clearly (further explanation would degenerate into a cat hijack, so I’ll just leave it at that).

Elephants paint, birds use tools (breadcrumbs, to catch fish, we’ve got pix). Ants have societies. And sadly, the show on walruses featuring two adult males bashing another male’s offspring to death proved to me that cruelty is not entirely a human quality.

Well, I was at a loss.

And then yesterday, peering into the displays at the Shedd Aquarium, it hit me. The difference is “Day Jobs”. Those sea anemones, they’re sea anemones all day long - they don’t put on little uniforms with nametags and sell burgers in order to support their anemonie-ness. No! Their anemone selves are all they’ve got and for some strange reason that’s enough. Same with the clown fish - never would they attempt to pass as crabs, lobsters, or barracuda. They may not live long, but they’re clown fish from the first day until the last.

Scoff if you will, but a truth has herein been described.

um…

did I mention I’ve had apprx. 37 day jobs? many including nametags

Perhaps it’s really the nametags that separate us from the animal kingdom. Lions don’t have “trainees.”

No, I think that won’t do. Many species take particular jobs at different times. Nesting pairs of birds often trade off on the duty of caring for the eggs or young and the duty of feeding the family. Some lionesses take care of the young of the pride, while others hunt. Ants specialize in various tasks for the betterment of the colony.

I’ve always felt the difference is better described by what abilities humans lack in comparison to other beasts, rather than what we have that they dont. To wit: While many species make and use tools of various sorts, and many species have ways to communicate, we are the only ones that couldn’t survive without tools and communication. If a human were left in the wild and somehow could not use any form of tool, he’d be toast in a matter of hours, even if no other animals were trying to kill him or her.

Sorry if I’ve turned your light-hearted thread into a Great Debate, but it could be a good one.

Thought about posting it as a GD, but felt a lack of cites might be too…um…flip?

Specializing in tasks is fine and perfectly within my notion of carrying out species functions. My theory is that animals don’t do things that are contrary to their nature, while people do. Until we learn better.

If you could have seen my artist/musician/philosopher(amateur variety) self playing basketball of all things, you’d get my point.

Marley23 I suspect you’re right about the nametags.

“Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.”

  • Thoreau

I don’t buy Saltire’s distinction. Surely there are a few environments on Earth hospitable enough (some Pacific or Caribbean islands, perhaps) that a random human could live just plucking fruit, drinking from springs, and sleeping under the stars. Lest you think this is unfair, how versatile are plenty of other species? How long would a fish live lying in the sand on that same fertile isle? How long could a chimp live in Death Valley?

I actually think fessie’s “day job” suggestion brushes tangentially on the truth: I think humans are distinguished by “metacognition”, i.e., an awareness of being aware… to think about thinking… An animal may be capable of fairly complex thoughts, but can’t “think outside the box”. The fish and the chimp can’t conceive of being something other than a fish or chimp… of selling burgers or whatever, even if they can (at least in the case of the chimp) learn certain actions.

You can train a chimp to flip burgers, but he’d never have come up with the idea on his own.

IMHO there may not be a physically tangible thing that separates us from animals.

Great Debates it is - let’s see how they like it. :slight_smile:

The difference between humans and other animals is the internet. Other animals have far too much dignity to create anything as inane as the internet.

I’m not at all sure there is anything separating us from (the rest of the) beasts. Our brain capacity and opposable thumb create some differences in the EXTENT to which we can plan, record, enjoy leisure, communicate, imagine, etc. But we are, after all, the product of undirected evolution the same as every other inhabitant of this planet.

Oh - except for that soul-thingy imbued by the miraculous touch of God…

Mark Twain described it best in ‘Letters of the Earth’. To summerize his long article describing the difference between an Earl and an Andaconda - Humans are the only creatures capable of moral sense, albeit not all humans distinct between right and wrong. Put an andaconda in a pen full of baby lambs and when it kills, it kills only one and swallows it whole. It is not labeled ‘murder’ for it knows no such label. It is its nature to eat until fulfilled thus the remaining lambs remain unmolested until it is hungry again. The Earl on the other hand will hunt and kill an entire herd of buffalo and let them rot on the prarie, useless to no creature save the buzzards and the worms. The Earl may even pause in an uncomfortable moment to ponder if other people may reguard him with contempt at his act. But this is only brief as he realizes he is surrounded with guests eager to re-count the ‘great hunt’.
Twain goes on to applaud Charles Darwin’s choice of title for his book “Descent of Man”. Try not to think about it too much people. Having a big brain has yet to be proven an evolutionary advantage.

Fessie:

One word: Zen

Now you are ready to leave this place, Grasshopper!

This is for jarbabyj -

Wass macht ein Mann,
Wass macht ein Mann,
Der zwischen Tier und Mensch,
Nicht unterscheiden kann.

Ask her.

Regards,
Shodan

Mr. Mace, by jobe.

Although I’m thinking perhaps it’s the lack of Zen - the fact that we can perceive Zen b/c we can also be without it (I’m thinking you can’t perceive something that you always are). And that animals can’t step away from their animal-ness, their animal Zen whatever-that-might-be.

hmmm

Sounds an awful lot like that “fall from grace” mentioned in some book somewhere. :slight_smile: I get a kick out of those East-West connections.

Hey, does a dog have a Buddha nature?

Fessie:

By Jove, you are not ready to leave this place after all, grasshopper. :frowning:

You will need to concentrate more on Zen. In fact you must concentrate on it to the point that you are no longer aware of it.:cool:

Oops. I just gave away the secret! Well, now everyone knows…

I think it’s the fact that humans don’t, with few exception, clean our own genitals with our tongues.
(British TV has all the answers.)

Many theories have been put forth on this topic. Here’s my belief:

Thumbs.

As we learn more and more about the animal kingdom, the differences get smaller and smaller, until thumbs are all we have left. Think about it next time you’re hitchhiking.

What about fire? We make it, we control it, we use it for various odd purposes such as cooking meat, refining metals, making bread and hardening spearpoints. I’m not aware of any other animal, besides the marabou stork and possibly the moth, that even tries to get close to fire. On the other hand, the hearthfire has been a central feature of human life since we evolved, and every known human society uses fire to some degree or another. In its way, the ability to harness fire is as unique to humans as the ability to travel into space.

Pictorial art is one of the most clear distinctions between modern humanity and our closest hominid relatives. Even Neanderthal Man left no unambiguous evidence of representational art, but as soon as *Homo sapiens sapiens *arrives on the scene, you’ve got cave paintings, fertility carvings and what have you.