• 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!

Is man just a really smart monkey

Is man just a really smart monkey


  • Total voters
    42
I would say agriculture and, consequently, the emergence of large communities (cities).

Most animals, including our ancestors, have to devote a huge portion of their lives and effort into securing a continuous energy supply just to stay alive. Mastering agriculture gave us the ability to produce that energy more efficiently and at a surplus. This allowed two important developments. 1) Humans had more time to devote to other pursuits than obtaining food and 2) Large, non-nomadic communities were able to begin forming (which were previously unsustainable in hunter-gatherer societies because the hunter-gatherer energy sources are diffuse, they aren't dense enough to support thousands, much less millions, of people in one single location).

Now, because of the power of agriculture not everyone living in the community had to devote time to farming. This facilitated the development of crude economies. Let's suppose half of the inhabitants of the community needed to be farmers. The other half could devote their time to doing other useful things. Maybe chopping wood for structures, harvesting clay and forming pottery, etc. The farmers would trade the potters some wheat for a clay jug and so forth.

It snowballs from there. Fast-forward to today, and you'll see only a tiny fraction of the world's population needs to be farmers to produce enough food for 7 billion people. This frees the vast majority of the population to devote themselves to other useful pursuits.

Your theory is that agriculture is the spark that started everything else. That could be so. If it is, then the development of agriculture is the single biggest advance in human history.
 
Humanity is not merely qualitatively superior to all animals, (as in Humans 100 Chimp 50), but a whole different paradigm, a sort of Prigogine-like leap of organization and complexity far beyond the great apes, dolphins and whales.

It is more than just a question of degree; it is a huge leap of orders of magnitude in complexity and sophistication. There is a vast gulf between the highest of animals and the average human.


Consider the complexity of thought and communication: humans are capable of thinking upon and communicating a virtual infinity of concepts, shaded with thousands of subtle nuances.... no animal can be shown to come even close in thought or communication.

Comparing animals and humans is like comparing a Stone Age flint knife to a 21st century automated machine-tool factory. In a sense they are both TOOLS, yes... but the complexity of one is so far beyond the other than the automated factory would seem like magic to the maker of the stone knife.

Consider art, literature, history, society, government... we organize and operate in realms of complexity and vast numbers of people coordinated into structures beyond the comprehension of apes and whales, who do not communicate beyond basic concepts nor organize larger than small bands.

There simply is no comparison. Humanity may resemble Animal in certain rough ways, but in fact Humanity is something as far beyond animals as computers are beyond stone knives.

I very much agree with this, and very much disagree with the (loaded) term 'really smart monkey.'

There is no doubt, absolutely zero, that we are the product of millions of years of evolution, and that we as a species are part of the greater primate family. We do indeed share a common ancestor with monkeys (though we are in no way descended from monkeys, and in fact we're relatively far away from monkeys in specific -- much closer to orangutans, bonobos and chimpanzees).

However, none of this is to say that we're unimportant, un-special, boring old gorillas running around scratching ourselves and thinking we have society.

We ARE special, we ARE incredible, and we ARE much, much more than monkeys. We have culture, society, art, poetry, science, mathematics, rocketry, politics, economics, religion, philosophy. We're beautiful, creative and boundless in our motivation and drive.

The OP, I suspect, believes that we cannot be all these things AND be 'monkeys.'

He is wrong. In fact, he's so wrong that he misses entirely what the true beauty of humanity is -- we weren't given some divine 'spark', and we have no-one to thank but ourselves for the incredible culture and history we've built. Some fake god isn't the cause of all this -- WE are, and we're just upjumped monkeys!

That's the cool part. It's a shame some can't see it.
 
Humans are a virus, a flaw which soon the flow of time will extinguish and erase all record of. In a sentence: We have been too successful for our own good.


Currently half of us are fat. Think about what that means for a minute. We are literally eating ourselves to death while depleting the planet of its precious resources. Eventually, this will result in a major fail. I cannot see how there could be any other outcome.
We'll just adapt when the problems come. Many people will die.... and civilization as we know it will cease to exist, but we'll still be around as long as the sun is.... if we figure out how to stop a world ending meteor, which I think we can hypothetically do, then we will be alright. We can live in a wasteland.... unfortunately. As long as we have the sun for energy.
 
We'll just adapt when the problems come. Many people will die.... and civilization as we know it will cease to exist, but we'll still be around as long as the sun is.... if we figure out how to stop a world ending meteor, which I think we can hypothetically do, then we will be alright. We can live in a wasteland.... unfortunately. As long as we have the sun for energy.
A 90% reduction in our population is not out of the question. As resources dwindle, wars ignite, followed by disease, pestilence and famine. The apocolyptic screeds preached by the crazies at least have that part right.
 
Where homo sapiens really began to diverge from the other animals is around ten thousand years ago when we started to experiment with agriculture, writing, mathematics, animal husbandry, and building more permanent structures.
Incorrect. Our tool-making had already given evidence of radical divergence. It occurs to me to mention that our art work and language also did.


Just why that happened, after 95% of our history had already passed, is one of the great mysteries of human progress.
But not one which erodes our position in the intelligence hierarchy at all.


The cetaceans have no opportunity to develop any of that living in their watery world.
Again: if cetaceans were anywhere near as smart as humans we would have discovered so in the course of our ongoing, decades-long, 24/7/365 study of them. That goes especially for their languages, a subject of special concentration. If for example they recited poetry to each other we would know about it by now. We would also know it if they could be trained to do even simple arithmetic
 
Incorrect. Our tool-making had already given evidence of radical divergence. It occurs to me to mention that our art work and language also did.



But not one which erodes our position in the intelligence hierarchy at all.



Again: if cetaceans were anywhere near as smart as humans we would have discovered so in the course of our ongoing, decades-long, 24/7/365 study of them. That goes especially for their languages, a subject of special concentration. If for example they recited poetry to each other we would know about it by now. We would also know it if they could be trained to do even simple arithmetic

How do we know they don't recite poetry to each other if we don't understand their language? Anyway, ancient man, pre literate man, didn't recite poetry either.
 
How do we know they don't recite poetry to each other if we don't understand their language?
Rhythm (as in Blank Verse) would distinguish it from prose. A dolphin ought to be able to speak in iambs as easily as we. Poetics experts could probably detect other regularities such as those roughly equivalent to the syllable counts which define Haiku. I do not accept Free Verse as a legitimate poetic form.


Anyway, ancient man, pre literate man, didn't recite poetry either.
Incorrect. Google "preliterate poetry" on that note. Homer himself may have composed during during a preliterate era in a preliterate environment, see link:

The New York Review of Books: Homer's Literacy (1992)

(from link):
Oxford University Press has just published a new three-volume Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey that will be the standard work for generations to come. Significantly, of the six contributors, of whom I am one, some believe in oral composition, some prefer to see a writing Homer, and some take no clear position on the question.

Also, how did the argument become confined to prehistorical humans? Whatever the reason for the delay in the neolithic revolution, human technical superiority was clearly established from the start of the archaeological record, and the modern gap is so stupendous that it is really not worth arguing about.
 
Human languages are most certainly not the only means of communication, let alone the mechanics of it's verbalized or written form. It is known that plants communicate, as do virtually every animal on our planet in one form or another. Attempting to use the human centric mentality to discuss communication ability denies the realities of our natural world....let alone anything else in the universe.

Do Chimps communicate....obviously they do, but we are unable to figure out what they are saying.
Are we simply a "Smart" ape....we are far more than that, but indeed can be referred to as such.
 
Humans are great apes, along with Orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, not monkeys.

Yes, we are primates/apes and not monkeys and we might be the smartest one among these primates but superior? Yes, in weapons making, killing, building, etc. etc. etc. we are superior to our ape cousins. But are we so sure we are morally superior? Great apes sometimes kill their own but not an a level we humans do. Great apes also do not kill the planet the live on, we do that. We might be the smartest but that does not make us superior to primates on a whole host of issues.
 
I have been seeing alot of stuff lately on elephants, dolphins etc that show compassion for other beings and seem to understand death at some level and mourn the passing of others. I always thought things like this is what separated man from animals but now I am beginning to wonder.

There really is nothing special about man that separates us from the rest of the animals on this planet. All life on planet earth is related by some distant cousin. The only difference between man and many animals is the level of consciousness we have vs other animals. Our ability to use our self awareness to effect the environment around us. All other animals have this same trait to varying degrees and it all depends on how evolved their brains are. Human brains have evolved much quicker and have grown a frontal cortex which allows us to use consciousness and critical thinking. The frontal cortex is what keeps us from acting on our primal instincts to harm each other and other animals needlessly.
 
Personally, I believe that domesticated dogs are superior to humans :).
 
Not according to Manc Skipper's post 27.

No one has taught dolphins math. They've figured it out on their own.

And expecting a creature without binocular vision, hands, or arms to read and write numeric symbols is really asking a lot.

And dolphins communicate over long distances without cellphones or anything.

I've believed the only teason we are having a hard time communicating with dolphins is the simple facte we are primarily visual and they are primarily echololocators.

And they probably demonstrated intelligence by going BACK to the ocean where living is easier.
 
Surely devices of some kind could easily be designed to test the hypothesis that dolphins have literacy potential- perhaps a set of letters on blocks with some kind of slotted boards to put them on.



This link is completely suspect because it has a section favorable to the infamous scientific quack Thomas Van Flandern. Van Flandern, among other things, believed the "face" on Mars is of ETI origin, and that gravity propagated 20 billion times the speed of light.

Arrogant to demand dolphins learn to write in YOUR language.

They have their own, and no need to write things down. Maybe you should learn THEIR language.

They may not communicate with us because they think WE are beneath THEM.

And humpback song changes every year. Coyld be epic poetry for all you know.

The dolphin neocortex poses a problem with your position, as that is what purportedly makes us "different" from other animals.
 
And dolphins communicate over long distances without cellphones or anything.

I've believed the only teason we are having a hard time communicating with dolphins is the simple facte we are primarily visual and they are primarily echololocators.

And they probably demonstrated intelligence by going BACK to the ocean where living is easier.

The reasons for cetacean movement back into the oceans had more to do with food and survival than intelligence....unless we are referring to the ephemeral intelligence of the evolutionary process rather than a grouping of animals. It is fascinating to imagine how a hippo can become a whale though...and wonder what these creatures "Think".

Here is a wonderful example of them thinking....and playing:

 
Your theory is that agriculture is the spark that started everything else. That could be so. If it is, then the development of agriculture is the single biggest advance in human history.

It also gave us social hierarchy, the manager class, nepotism and the ability to wage war (can't wage war if you have to stop a couple times a day to find something to eat.)

I highly recommend "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond on this subject.
 
I have been seeing alot of stuff lately on elephants, dolphins etc that show compassion for other beings and seem to understand death at some level and mourn the passing of others. I always thought things like this is what separated man from animals but now I am beginning to wonder.

Are we supposed to guess? I don't think any of us know the answer.

We have many characteristic that is similar to the animal kingdom. Some of the things that we do is very strange and rarely matched by any other species. There isn't even a second place competitor. It makes you wonder if we were uniquely created to be different. If we evolved superiorly then why aren't there other species equal or somewhat equal in intelligence?

Your question is really just a variation of the question if we believe in evolution or creationism?

There are very many that believe in one or the other. There are some people who genuinely don't know and don't care. It doesn't alter the responsibilities of our day to day live once we discover the correct answer.
 
The more you study the higher forms of life on planet Earth, the more you realize that the gulf between humans and other animals is really not all that great.

Which species is in second place?
 
Usually these sort of questions are asked with a sort of indignity toward the suggestion that it would be just damned awful if we were in any way related to the apes (not monkeys). Somehow, this realization would just tarnish something like the Sistine Chapel.
 
I have been seeing alot of stuff lately on elephants, dolphins etc that show compassion for other beings and seem to understand death at some level and mourn the passing of others. I always thought things like this is what separated man from animals but now I am beginning to wonder.

Humans are great apes, along with Orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, not monkeys.

[Hu]man is a species separate and distinct from apes and monkeys. Man (modern) is referred to as homo sapien sapien. Mankind as we know it are sapiens. Do no we aren't really smart monkeys, or even apes, but we are a species that evolved from an ape. So we aren't different creatures all together.

Many animals from differing species exhibit feelings and emotions. Being that those are caused by neurotransmitters they only need neurons and brain capacity to feel emotions.
 
Of course as others pointed out we are vastly more intelligent than most animals. A few species approach some of our mental capacities (without possessing the flexibility, variety, and complexity of our high number of capacities), including dolphins, pigs, great apes, chimpanzees, elephants, crows, dogs, and surprisingly, squirrels and octopuses. As impressive as certain studies are (like the mentioned language and math capacities in dolphins, the abilities that pigs have of playing videogames, and how certain chimpanzees can be trained to perform complex tasks), we haven't exactly found dolphins who composed symphonies like Beethoven's 9th or pigs who have launched spaceships and have touched down on the moon.

However when I think of it, degree of intelligence is not my main focus of concern. I do realize it is the focus of this thread so my contribution is a bit off-topic, but what I focus more, is on sentience, self-awareness, the understand of one's individual destiny and impending death, the ability to discern others as individuals, and similar operations that characterize what I'd see as personhood.

By now, there is no scientific doubt about the fact that some of the other animal species in the planet are also sentient and self-conscious.

I'm not particularly an animal lover, I don't have or desire to have pets, and I'm an omnivore.

However I do believe that certain animals qualify for being considered as persons, and I think they should benefit from some laws granting them some rights such as not being killed by humans for any purpose (be it sport or feeding).

If a dolphin recognizes himself on a mirror, has a name for himself and for his mate, has a concept of family, and mourns when a loved one passes away (and these traits have been more or less convincingly demonstrated in various studies), then a dolphin is a person, and as a person, shouldn't be killed for sport as certain people do especially in the Japanese culture. A person willingly killing a dolphin should be charged with a felony.

I'm not sure how a dolphin would compare to a human in terms of IQ. Certainly their kind of intelligence must be very different from ours and concepts can't be easily transferred from one species to another. Dolphins lack hands to manipulate the environment and can't use fire as a source of energy given their liquid environment. These impediments prevent dolphins from developing a civilization, but certain scientists believe they would be able to develop one, if they had the appropriate means to manipulate their environment.

In any case, even if certain species at best only reached an intelligence equivalent to that of a retarded human child (certain primates have been demonstrated to operate at an IQ estimated at about 50 which would correspond to that of a moderately mentally retarded child), killing a retarded child is a crime, therefore there is no justification for killing a dolphin just because their IQ is perhaps lower than ours (at least, from our side of how to understand and measure intelligence).

So, without going to extremes (for example, I think a chicken and a cow and fish are fairly mindless creatures that are basically live stock raised or hunted/fished for human food consumption, and I have no problem whatsoever with killing and eating them), I believe that at least those animal species found to be sentient, self-aware, and most intelligent, should be protected and left alone to enjoy themselves the way they feel fit, and should be taken out of the human food chain or pleasure hunting targets.

It's a form of kindness that we'd like to enjoy and deserve, if a species of hyper-intelligent space aliens came to Earth one day with an intelligence vastly superior to ours. We wouldn't appreciate it if they killed us just because our IQs were lower than theirs.

I'd want a good body of evidence and scientific consensus to establish a short list of demonstrably sentient/self-aware/highly intelligent species, and I'd pass legislation making it illegal and a felony to kill them.

Where to dry the line? Of course, it's difficult to say for sure, since according to a panel of scientists from Oxford University, most specials of mammals and birds have at least some form of rudimentary sentience.

I'd draw the line fairly high (or else we'd impact on human food resources) - like I said, it would be a short list of species - but even if this left out some arguably sentient species, this would still be better than the current situation in which killing dolphins, pigs, elephants, and great apes in most places is not illegal, at least not outside the realm of endangered species legislation.

My justification for not killing them has nothing to do with endangered species, which I consider to be a rather silly concept (let's leave Mother Nature alone; species have gone extinct by the billions for the entire history of the planet), but rather, with personhood. I don't care if there are 100 million dolphins or 100 of them left. I'd still find wrong to kill any of them, based on the fact that they seem to be able to think and to understand who they are and what is their individual destiny.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure, but it probably depends on how you measure intelligence.

By the vastness of their creative achievements. I.E. Electricity, computers, the great pyramids, pop tarts, lemonade, automobiles, microwave ovens, the locomotive engine, religions that mezmerize billions of people, open heart surgery and things like that.

I wasn't referring to using sticks to dig for worms or using a rock to break an oyster. Those kind of advancements make me yawn.

Which specie has made similar achievements to man?
 
Which species kills the most members of its species for no good reason?

Humans probably take the trophy on that one. Does that prove or disprove superior intelligence? I think you could take that argument either way.
 
Back
Top Bottom