• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Animals are superior to Human Beings

RAMOSS said:
Yes, yes you can. But, without that, you die.

for that matter, there is more biomass that are single celled animals that are much more adaptable that any vertebrate.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they all have to adapt themselves to suit their environment, none can change their environment to suit themselves.
 
Goshin said:
I'd call it self-evident, since without advanced intellect and sapience one cannot even comprehend what 'superior' means.
Click to expand...
It also means they can't have the arrogance to care. ;)

Why do we have to be "superior"? What's wrong with just being "different"?
 
smax26 said:
Of course, some may argue human beings are animals, but for the sake of semantics and this post let's assume they are different.

Animal species unite amongst themselves, but human beings continue to fight. We separate ourselves based on our ideologies and thus create conflict. Animals work with their environment, humans mostly use up all of the resources, pollute, contaminate and destroy it.

Some may argue the following points:

Animals have no culture. Rebuttal: we see several social species such as chimps living in quite complex societies who's ritualistic behavior varies from location to location. The ways they interact, eat, play, and have even been observed contemplating their dead in makeshift funerals, could be considered culture depending on how you want to define that word.

Animals cannot create beauty/art/music. Rebuttal: we see many examples of great artists such as the intricate patterns created by spider webs, certain marine animals who can create beautiful patterns in the sand to attract mates and the amazing colorful patterns creatures such as a peacock can display. As far as music goes you simply can observe the beautiful songs so many birds can produce as evidence for animals' musical abilities.

Animals are not conscious. Rebuttal: If you say they are not conscious it begs the question, compared to who? Human beings? I would agree that animals are most likely not as self conscious as human beings. However that is not to say that there are not conscious beings at all. Their consciousness may not have quite evolved to the level of humans, at least not yet. However they may very well be conscious at some level but it would be very difficult for us to measure or detect exactly how much.

Human beings are better at surviving. Rebuttal: Many species such as insects can adapt to endure even the most catastrophic of environments much more easily than humans can.

Animals cannot communicate efficiently. Rebuttal: The human language is linear, purely symbolic, and mostly utilitarian. Some animals can communicate in much more efficient ways without using clunky words. A honey bee can perform a simple dance and all of the other bees will instantly know the exact location of that flower or hive. Wales can guide themselves towards each other from many miles away. Other species can use chemical scents to communicate many pieces of information to each other in a very short amount of time.

Animals have no sense of humor. Rebuttal: How do we know this? Simply because they cannot smile or audibly produce laughter does that mean they cannot appreciate humor or amusement? When baby cubs play and fall over each other are they amusing themselves? The mother looking on, does she find the situation amusing? One monkey may enjoy yanking on the other monkeys' tails and then running away, is this not a form of amusement and sense of humor? That funny monkey can't crack jokes but may have a quite enhanced sense of humor indeed.

Any other counterpoints for humans being superior to animals I would love to hear them. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Superior to humans? No. You would have to get everyone to agree on what specifically defines "superior" to make that case. Neither is fully superior to the others.

That said, every point you made about animals is completely accurate.

I wouldn't say either one is "superior", but each is superior to the other in some ways.
 
Goshin said:
Fine. Let them come here to this thread and make their case. :D
Click to expand...


They don't need to. They exist. Many of them can kill you if they get into your body, and they evolve a lot faster too, building up antibiotic resistance. The criteria you use to say 'we are superior' is entirely subjective.
 
RAMOSS said:
They don't need to. They exist. Many of them can kill you if they get into your body, and they evolve a lot faster too, building up antibiotic resistance. The criteria you use to say 'we are superior' is entirely subjective.
Click to expand...



:shrug:

You can call it subjective if you wish; the fact remains no other species exists that can come on this thread and articulate a contrary opinion. :)
 
HonestJoe said:
It also means they can't have the arrogance to care. ;)

Why do we have to be "superior"? What's wrong with just being "different"?
Click to expand...



Only that it is obvious fact.
 
RAMOSS said:
They don't need to. They exist. Many of them can kill you if they get into your body, and they evolve a lot faster too, building up antibiotic resistance. The criteria you use to say 'we are superior' is entirely subjective.
Click to expand...

Any criteria for superiority is subjective.
 
Goshin said:
:shrug:

You can call it subjective if you wish; the fact remains no other species exists that can come on this thread and articulate a contrary opinion. :)
Click to expand...

Yes,.. that is true. But, it still means nothing when it comes to 'superior'.. since you are specifically choosing criteria that favors yourself.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes,.. that is true. But, it still means nothing when it comes to 'superior'.. since you are specifically choosing criteria that favors yourself.
Click to expand...



Ok bud, amoeba are superior, I give. :lamo


No seriously... if you can't see it when it is all right there in front of you, I don't know what else to say to you.
 
smax26 said:
Of course, some may argue human beings are animals, but for the sake of semantics and this post let's assume they are different.

Animal species unite amongst themselves, but human beings continue to fight. We separate ourselves based on our ideologies and thus create conflict. Animals work with their environment, humans mostly use up all of the resources, pollute, contaminate and destroy it.

Some may argue the following points:

Animals have no culture. Rebuttal: we see several social species such as chimps living in quite complex societies who's ritualistic behavior varies from location to location. The ways they interact, eat, play, and have even been observed contemplating their dead in makeshift funerals, could be considered culture depending on how you want to define that word.

Animals cannot create beauty/art/music. Rebuttal: we see many examples of great artists such as the intricate patterns created by spider webs, certain marine animals who can create beautiful patterns in the sand to attract mates and the amazing colorful patterns creatures such as a peacock can display. As far as music goes you simply can observe the beautiful songs so many birds can produce as evidence for animals' musical abilities.

Animals are not conscious. Rebuttal: If you say they are not conscious it begs the question, compared to who? Human beings? I would agree that animals are most likely not as self conscious as human beings. However that is not to say that there are not conscious beings at all. Their consciousness may not have quite evolved to the level of humans, at least not yet. However they may very well be conscious at some level but it would be very difficult for us to measure or detect exactly how much.

Human beings are better at surviving. Rebuttal: Many species such as insects can adapt to endure even the most catastrophic of environments much more easily than humans can.

Animals cannot communicate efficiently. Rebuttal: The human language is linear, purely symbolic, and mostly utilitarian. Some animals can communicate in much more efficient ways without using clunky words. A honey bee can perform a simple dance and all of the other bees will instantly know the exact location of that flower or hive. Wales can guide themselves towards each other from many miles away. Other species can use chemical scents to communicate many pieces of information to each other in a very short amount of time.

Animals have no sense of humor. Rebuttal: How do we know this? Simply because they cannot smile or audibly produce laughter does that mean they cannot appreciate humor or amusement? When baby cubs play and fall over each other are they amusing themselves? The mother looking on, does she find the situation amusing? One monkey may enjoy yanking on the other monkeys' tails and then running away, is this not a form of amusement and sense of humor? That funny monkey can't crack jokes but may have a quite enhanced sense of humor indeed.

Any other counterpoints for humans being superior to animals I would love to hear them. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Greetings, smax26. :2wave:

Excellent! :thumbs:
 
Goshin said:
And we are the only species on Earth that even knows what "subjective" means. :D
Click to expand...

But our penises don't have bones in them (unlike most mammals), yet we still call them boners.

Using intelligence as a criteria for superiority is just as valid as using ability to survive only on the nutrients exuded by volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean.
 
spud_meister said:
But our penises don't have bones in them (unlike most mammals), yet we still call them boners.

Using intelligence as a criteria for superiority is just as valid as using ability to survive only on the nutrients exuded by volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean.
Click to expand...



I'd have to disagree with you.

Surviving on nutrients from volcanic vents is an example of a species adapting to its environment.

Humans alter our environment to better suit our needs... hence, homes, roads, cities, factories, technology, science, satellites, space stations...


We're the only species who gets to decide what criteria is "valid" because we're the only species that even knows or cares what that means. :D
 
Goshin said:
I'd have to disagree with you.

Surviving on nutrients from volcanic vents is an example of a species adapting to its environment.

Humans alter our environment to better suit our needs... hence, homes, roads, cities, factories, technology, science, satellites, space stations...


We're the only species who gets to decide what criteria is "valid" because we're the only species that even knows or cares what that means. :D
Click to expand...

Right, so as a representative of my species, I'm deciding that the ability to survive on aquatic volcanic nutrients is the sole criteria for species superiority.

To clarify my position, I believe contrary to what the OP states, humans are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom because of our ability to alter our environment to suit out needs, but we're not inherently superior to every other species in a given environment. If our environment were a tube made out of meter thick glass with the only escape being a one inch hole in the top, I'd much prefer to be a gecko than a person. Hence why the OP is bull****, but I'm still having fun arguing semantics with you.
 
spud_meister said:
Right, so as a representative of my species, I'm deciding that the ability to survive on aquatic volcanic nutrients is the sole criteria for species superiority.

To clarify my position, I believe contrary to what the OP states, humans are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom because of our ability to alter our environment to suit out needs, but we're not inherently superior to every other species in a given environment. If our environment were a tube made out of meter thick glass with the only escape being a one inch hole in the top, I'd much prefer to be a gecko than a person. Hence why the OP is bull****, but I'm still having fun arguing semantics with you.
Click to expand...


Okay, my little gecko-from-down-under, hand my leg back and I'll buy you a beer, if you get us out of this glass tube...
 
Goshin said:
Ok bud, amoeba are superior, I give. :lamo


No seriously... if you can't see it when it is all right there in front of you, I don't know what else to say to you.
Click to expand...


Yes, in some respects, they are.. depending on what criteria you are looking at. After all, they are perfectly happy and willing to take residence in your intestines and let you feed them.

what makes one organism' superior' over another is entirely subjective,and you are letting your ego get in the way. That's the only reason something is 'self evident'. When someone uses the term 'self evident', it is not.
 
PoS said:
Hell yes! This chart proves it:

eEIy4mY.jpg
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that the ability to kill something makes you better than it correct? So by your logic you are better than nearly every women on Earth, every child, every baby? Simply because you can kill them? And eat them if you wanted to? And any loser, criminal type with huge muscles who can kick your ass is better than you? But seriously I do not think killing something makes you better. I was leaning more towards respect or something similar as being the deciding factor. I believe that the species (human vs animal) that can mostly respect one another, respect the environment, come together and coexist without needless wars, racism, slavery, genocide, ugly religious/political conflicts, etc - is a better (more superior) species. So in that regard, as humans vs. animals go, given our Earth destroying past and extremely bloody violent history, animals win.
 
faithful_servant said:
Animals will kill each other with great vigor. Often killing their own offspring to ensure their own survival. Some species will actually kill their entire food supply and end starving to death as a result.
Click to expand...

First of all, killing for survival is completely different than killing for ideological man made concepts. Also we are comparing humans v animals here, so your couple examples mean nothing in the bigger picture where most animals unite while most humans separate needlessly via politics, nationalism, religion, etc and continually fight those who disagree with their ideologies. We nuke each other and can kill off the entire human race. 1 dictator can kill millions of innocent people for their ideology. Do animals do that?

faithful_servant said:
A conclusion that can only be arrived by assuming that the behaviors being observed are parallel human cultural activities. For all we know, when chimps hold their "funerals", they're just making sure the dead chimp is really dead before killing it's offspring, taking it mates or taking it's prime sleeping spot.
Click to expand...

I said it all depends on how you want to define 'Culture'. Did you not read that part? Animals can have their own culture, sure, independent of any parallel human activities. Then you're whole "for all we know" just shows how ignorant you are about chimp culture. Touching Footage of Chimps Mourning the Death of One of Their Own - Inspirational Videos
Do some actual research before you spout off such nonsense. BTW - elephants might have been a better example for holding funerals for their dead.
Elephants really do grieve like us: They shed tears and even try to 'bury' their dead - a leading wildlife film-maker reveals how the animals are like us | Daily Mail Online

faithful_servant said:
Only seen as art by assuming that these are done for the sake of beauty and not functionality. Not all spider webs are beautiful, but all are functional. A peacocks feathers are nothing more than a tool for finding a mate, they are not made beautiful for nothing more than the sake of beauty.
Click to expand...

How do you know animals do not create beauty for beauty's sake? Your wild assertion needs to be backed up with evidence which you cannot provide. Are you absolutely certain an animal can't stare into a gorgeous sunset and appreciate beauty? Are they not attracted to each other and find mates by their own standards of beauty? We do not know for sure which what was my point.

faithful_servant said:
According to many people, the smallest change in the environment can cause catastrophic damage to a specie. So which is it? Are animals adaptable to changes in their environment or aren't they??
Click to expand...

So again you are trying to bring up exceptions to the rule by stating that ONE conditional change can kill off ONE species. Animals as a whole species have been around much longer and have survived catastrophic conditions humans could have never survived. This is fact. Do some research.
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
Again, you are conflating functionality with doing something for the sake of doing it.
Click to expand...

Again, what is this nonsense you are accusing me of? There's communication period. The purpose of that communication is besides the point and it's obvious that you were just grasping for straws with this one.

faithful_servant said:
There you go again, assuming that because it's somethig that humans do for their purposes, that the animals are doing it for the same purposes. You have no idea if a mother lion thinks her cubs actions are humorous, she may just be thinking "That one's the first one I kill if food gets tight." As far as the monkey's pulling each other's tails is concerned, you have no idea if it's because the monkey thinks it's funny or if the monkey does it figure out if the other monkey is tough enough to stop them.
Click to expand...

There YOU go again, trying to assert that purpose has anything to do with appreciating humor. My point was lions MAY find it amusing to watch her cubs play and how do we know that they don't. I was arguing against someone saying that animals have no sense of humor by asking how do we know that assertion is true. Do you understand now? Btw I find it more likely that she will be amused than "which one she is going to eat next". Again with the monkey example, I was proposing a question not making an assertion. Please go back and re-read carefully.

faithful_servant said:
The entire basis for your argument is that based on how you choose to interpret their behavior, animals are superior. You make assumptions that you can't prove to make the point want to make.
Click to expand...

This sums up your ignorance and obvious agenda bias to try and poke holes where there are none. Interpreting behavior can be subjective yes, but to say I made assumptions that I can't prove is ridiculous. I can't prove that bee's dance to communicate? I can't prove that animals mourn their dead? Are you serious? Anyway my actual argument was presented in the 2nd paragraph which you completely left out of your attempted cherry picking deconstruction of my post. Again, please go back and re-read carefully. My actual ARGUMENT, is that we separate ourselves based on our ideologies and thus create conflict. Animals work with their environment, humans mostly use up all of the resources, pollute, contaminate and destroy it. Thus animals are superior. Please try and prove this wrong. Everything I posted after that was simply proposed counter-arguments against, and proposed rebuttals for. Granted I should have done a better job of defining Superior in the first place. When I said Superior I was leaning more towards respect or something similar as being the deciding factor in superiority. I believe that of the 2 species we are discussing (human vs animal) the one that can mostly respect one another, respect the environment, come together and coexist without needless wars, racism, slavery, genocide, ugly religious/political conflicts, etc - is a better (more superior) species. So in that regard, as humans vs. animals go, given our Earth destroying past and overwhelmingly bloody violent history, animals win.
 
Last edited:
WillyPete said:
This for me.

Humans are unique in that we can "reprogram" our behavior separately from our genetics. In many ways, we've separated our evolution from our biology. Generally, a dog will behave like a dog, no matter what he experiences in life, whereas a human can potentially completely change their behavior base on one experience and then change it again based on an observation.

Now, the quality of our programming is up for debate, but it's flexibility is unique. I believe it makes us better. there certainly aren't any animals around that we should become subservient to.

There are animals that have learned from us, but it's difficult to tell whether they comprehend the behavior or are mimics. I suppose the only way to know for certain would be for an animal to spontaneously teach a human something new.

Another aspect here is that since they are generally unable to communicate, we tend to think of animals as innocent victims. If they could make themselves understood, we might feel differently.
Click to expand...

Good point Willy. However I would offer that through many years of evolution, perhaps animals can actually 'learn' to behave differently. But perhaps your point is that humans already have that ability right now (well some do anyhow) and I can't really argue with that.
 
I definetly agree aninals are a superior form of meat than humans.
tastier, usually less fatty, less social stigma about eating them etc etc...
 
Quag said:
I definetly agree aninals are a superior form of meat than humans.
tastier, usually less fatty, less social stigma about eating them etc etc...
Click to expand...

From a subjective and human centric point of view, I will have to agree, particularly if it slow cooked with a huge amount of bbq sauce.
 
spud_meister said:
Right, so as a representative of my species, I'm deciding that the ability to survive on aquatic volcanic nutrients is the sole criteria for species superiority.

To clarify my position, I believe contrary to what the OP states, humans are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom because of our ability to alter our environment to suit out needs, but we're not inherently superior to every other species in a given environment. If our environment were a tube made out of meter thick glass with the only escape being a one inch hole in the top, I'd much prefer to be a gecko than a person. Hence why the OP is bull****, but I'm still having fun arguing semantics with you.
Click to expand...

Since you think my post is such "BS" Let me respond to your BS post. Being able to alter your environment to suit your needs does not mean you are necessarily superior. It just means that some humans are better at altering environments than some animals, which still doesn't necessarily mean we are better at adapting or surviving as a whole for that matter. Also we are not the only species that can alter our environments by any means. Please educate yourself. Humans aren't the only animals that change their environments | Juneau Empire - Alaska's Capital City Online Newspaper

However I should have clarified exactly what I meant by "Superior", but even if we grant that we are superior because we can alter our environments, have we been using clean energy to do so? Or are we destroying our environment and killing native species in the process? Do you think global warming came about from animals? Cows farting too much perhaps? All of this altering surely has side effects that you may be too short sighted to see.

Point is, when I said "Superior" I was leaning more towards respect or something similar as being the deciding factor in superiority. I believe that of the 2 species we are discussing (human vs animal) the one that can mostly respect one another, respect the environment, come together and coexist without needless wars, racism, slavery, genocide, ugly religious/political conflicts, etc - is a better (more superior) species. So in that regard, as humans vs. animals go, given our Earth destroying past and overwhelmingly bloody violent history, animals win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom