Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Homo superior?

11:29 / 16.11.05

In the various threads that discuss animal rights, both here and in Lab, there is often reference made to the belief by certain parts of society that humans are in some way superior to animals. I couldn't find a thread where this is specifically discussed so thought I might kick one off. I feel it's more of a Head thread, but have no complaints if the Mods want to move it over to Lab.

Although my personal opinions lean towards pro-human superiority, I'll try and keep this opening thread as objective as I can and will begin to argue from my point of view once a few others have posted. Obviously the answers that this thread generates are going to be personally held beliefs rather than, necessarily, the definitive way things are. But like Bob Hoskins once said "It's good to talk."

Why do some people feel that humans are superior to other organisms? Is there any truth to this belief? Physically there are plenty of other animals that are superior to a human in specific areas. Is the belief of superiority to do with our percieved level of sapience, apparently greater than any other creature (note: "apparently")?

If you believe in a spiritual aspect to existence how does this affect your view of humans when compared to animals? Why?

Is a concept of "superior" and "inferior" even applicable when it comes to a living organism? Why is this so, do you think?

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:41 / 16.11.05

This thread might be useful for reference.

01:02 / 21.11.05

Normally, I think animals are equal to humans. Sure, we can talk and walk and laugh and cry and do other generally "human" things, but I don't think we're superior to them. Humans can't smell anything compared to dogs. Humans can't hear anything compared to bats. The list goes on. We also can't fucking fly - how disappointing is that for humans?

But on the other hand, and this is like a Meno observation, but I think the idea of this thread shows our inherent superiority. Just the fact that we can discuss and argue and compare and articulate and elucidate our ideas in a meaningfull matter shows how we're just a little bit better than animals in terms of pure intellectual power.

But we can't fly. Shit.

04:25 / 21.11.05

But we can't fly. Shit.

Clearly you've never met any Mormons.

sdv (non-human)

10:18 / 21.11.05

Given the history of notions of 'superiority' and 'supremacy' with regard to human history, are you really sure that you want to discuss the concept in this way ? We should explictly acknowledge the complete inhumane disaster that accompanies the notion of 'superiority'.

For example in relation to the human - there has never been a general use of the term that hasn't resulted in exploitation and frequently mass murder. And this of course is merely to acknowledge the historical baggage that inevitably accompanies the term...

When one considers the probable results of the cyborg and the posthuman in our laughably inequal societies....

10:37 / 21.11.05

Why do some people feel that humans are superior to other organisms?

I sometimes feel it's because we are the ones doing the asking.

At the end of the day we are animals as well just another different species of one. Are we successful? In a way yes we are highly successful at taking over almost any environment on this little planet and living in it.

Are we superior to other species? Well I'm not so sure, we have created cures and just as many diseases. Does any other species constantly try to destroy itself and it's surrounds?

12:49 / 21.11.05

I think that humans are perhaps the most destructive force on the entire planet. Without us, the Earth may well exist in some kind of equilibrium, but as humans with selfish motives and the ability to transform our environments, we constantly tip that balance, and this is of course, bad.

Who ever heard of spiders putting a massive hole in the Ozone layer, or using all the petrol? Who ever heard of monkies decemating the rainforests? We are bad.

Because of this, I think that some animals may have the upper hand. They don't have all of this other bullshit to deal with, they just exist without knowing why, or even worrying why.

Oh, to be a cat.

19:42 / 21.11.05

Who ever heard of monkies decemating the rainforests?

well, that's us, isn't it? hey hey we're the monkies, burning everything down...

i am also wary of couching this discussion in terms of 'superiority' of species. there are about six billion of us; but there are six billion flies in five kilometres radius of where i sit. there is a significant proportion of all earth's creatures in insects. and fish. and so on. but in what way is it supposed humans are 'superior'?

we have the faculty of self-awareness and almost certainly have a high degree of intelligence compared with most of the aninmal kingdom. but that is one facet in our survival armoury. we aren't that fast, we don't have poison or camouflage or dangerous teeth or claws. and we can't fly. ahh, so sad.

but we do have the burden of moral awareness. is this good? is this better?

10:56 / 22.11.05

I heard this theory a while ago, could have been mine...I was drunk and it was late.

The crux was that humans are a testing ground for more and more hardcore bacteria. The rapid mutation of some bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics within a hundred years of their first use, MRSA being the latest example, led to the point being mooted that we might just be walking petri dishes. Tying this in with Watson's cosmological biogenetic theory (that life began on earth from meteorite impacts carrying biological material), all we're doing is beefing bacteria to be more hardy and efficient in this process. Y'know if we want to colonise space, we need way more food, produce far more waste etc, than bacteria. Didn't go down well with some at the table who were reduced to spluttering indignation "but...they can't think".

Which brings up the point that we're only superior at being human. Tigers are superior at being tigers, flies are superior at being flies. Every single lifeform on the planet has been evolving for the same amount of time humans have, just in a different niche, so we're only the pinnacle of evolution when looked at from a human perspective. And i suppose an advanced/superior species would learn not to wreck it's environment...some work to do there.

11:04 / 30.11.05

Hmm, some interesting points here.

I'm not sure that I agree that the environmental damage we have inflicted, and continue to inflict, is evidence that we aren't superior than other lifeforms on the planet.

We are the only species that has recognised there is a problem and is in a position to actually do anything about the damage that has been done. No other species has, apparently, done anything other than try and survive the ecological changes or die out.

There are vast swathes of humans who are not the "relentless destroyers of all that is good and pure". Ours is the only species that actively tries to limit the damage it inflicts on the environment through conservation efforts. Those spiders may not have caused a hole in the ozone layer, but neither do they attempt to protect other species from becoming extinct.

The crux was that humans are a testing ground for more and more hardcore bacteria.

Heh, that's quite a cool theory.

we have the faculty of self-awareness and almost certainly have a high degree of intelligence compared with most of the aninmal kingdom. but that is one facet in our survival armoury. we aren't that fast, we don't have poison or camouflage or dangerous teeth or claws. and we can't fly. ahh, so sad.

Well, the human species evolved as a generalist. Our (go on Evil, say it) superior intelligence has always been the key factor in getting round problems. If we cannot make poison then we can easily get some off those tree frogs. If we do not have claws, we make spears. If we cannot fly, then we shall build mighty zeppelins and soar the heavens laughing at God's creation.

Bwah ha haa!

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:27 / 30.11.05

No other species has, apparently, done anything other than try and survive the ecological changes or die out.

Well, yes. So, if you identify superior intelligence as the evolutionary angle the human race has taken, in what sense exactly is the application of that evolutionary trait - by trying to invent cleaner fuels, for example - in order to avoid dying out any different from a desert species learning to hunt later in the evening? It is adapting its behaviour to changes in its environment.

11:49 / 30.11.05

With all respect, Evil, I'm going to join the others in saying this is silly. You can't establish superiority without first agreeing what constitutes the basis for that superiority and you can't do that without essentially begging the question. And thats before we get into the potential ethical problems that people talk about above.

Having said that, there is good reason to believe that we are hardwired to value humans over other animals. But this intuition, no matter how natural it seems to us, is no justification for some abstract superiority, nor does it require such. After all, I value my father over others but that doesn't commit me to having to argue that my father is significantly more intelligent, strong or generally able than other members of the human species.

11:56 / 30.11.05

Well, yes. So, if you identify superior intelligence as the evolutionary angle the human race has taken, in what sense exactly is the application of that evolutionary trait - by trying to invent cleaner fuels, for example - in order to avoid dying out any different from a desert species learning to hunt later in the evening? It is adapting its behaviour to changes in its environment.

Taking your examples here. Learning to hunt later in the day is not necessarily going to help the species survive long-term if the environmental conditions are worsening. Evolution is rather short-sighted when it comes to survival, and what works today may be the thing that wipes out the species tomorrow.

In developing cleaner fuels we are attempting to reduce emissions which are causing the environmental damage in the first place. The damaging effects of global warming, whilst currently large, are not immediately threatening to our species as a whole. Evolution is a slow-process and doesn't always cope well with rapid changes. So where a human might work out why the water supply is making his species sick and do something about it, the duck can't (currently).

Unlike most species I can think of, we are capable of planning for and dealing with events that have not yet threatened us. We also have the ability to exercise change on a global scale in order to deal with emergent problems.

Tryphena Absent

12:11 / 30.11.05

But we can only predict those threats because we have the ability to design and create advanced tools and we can only do that because we evolved thumbs. Does that make us superior in any sense other than luck? In terms of intelligence I would say no, too big a proportion of humanity fails to recognise how much we can do because we have the ability to simply pick objects up with our hands rather than our mouthes or feet. Animals are not inferior because they can't cook food.

Why do some people feel that humans are superior to other organisms?

I sometimes feel it's because we are the ones doing the asking.

Mr Doolittle are you?

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:11 / 30.11.05

. Evolution is rather short-sighted when it comes to survival, and what works today may be the thing that wipes out the species tomorrow.

Like burning fossil fuels to create energy? I think that's the issue here - you appear to be excepting any action coming from ratiocination from the course of evolution, and thus awarding humanity preeminence for having superseded evolution and thus triumphed over nature. I see humanity's various inventions as products of an evolutionary predisposition towards ratiocination. Eagles drop tortoises on rocks, bees live in hives, humans model scenarios. And?

14:33 / 30.11.05

As others have said, the notion of superiority implies context. I have no difficulty saying humans are superior according to some measures, but the measures themselves are somewhat arbitrary. For all that has been argued about the adaptability of human beings and our status as generalists, our place at the top of the ecological pyramid (being second or third generation consumers instead of primary producers) is inherently unstable. In the event of MAJOR change, I suspect that the bacteria and phytoplankton will do far better than we.

Diversity is important for evolutionary viability - but humanity is genetically very homogenous. It wouldn't take much to wipe us out.

sdv (non-human)

18:05 / 30.11.05

superior...

with thinking like this no wonder we have a history of death camps

18:47 / 30.11.05

superior...

with thinking like this no wonder we have a history of death camps

Oh, do give it a fucking rest. What, we're all supposed to go through life without making any relative value judgments whatsoever?

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:47 / 30.11.05

Godwin.

Which is to say, if we could possibly avoid dragging in random references to death camps which do little but raise the emotional temperature, I'm sure we would all be a lot happier.

(And yes, I know, Foucault rationalist project fishcakes, but Foucault did not write a single sentence with an ellipsis at the end.)

13:13 / 01.12.05

Mirror: In the event of MAJOR change, I suspect that the bacteria and phytoplankton will do far better than we

And this bacteria and plankton has even been around far longer than we.

And a similar note, the infectious protein structures called prions that are found in such diseases as "mad cow" and "kuru" are proteins that do not live or die in the same way humans perceive and understand it. You cannot kill by burning tissue that is infected by prions. These proteins can replicate themselves, without the use of nucleic acids.

In evolutionary terms, the fact that these proteins cannot be "killed" means that their "DNA" will be transmitted more frequently and with more strength than our real DNA. More transmission means higher survival rates. Unless human scientists can figure out a way to step in and remove the prions, then they must and will outlast us.

06:29 / 02.12.05

Regarding prions.

However, their ability to evolve is outclassed by several orders of magnitude by the most simple virus. So there is a good chance of organisms affected by prions out-evolving them.

Although prions are not very-well understood currently, it is believed that they become infectious due to a deformation of their molecular structure. Which then, somehow, causes non-infectious versions of the protein to deform into this new state.

Compared with the elegance and speed (relatively speaking) of DNA (and even RNA) based evolution, prionic development barely moves.

sdv (non-human)

08:54 / 02.12.05

mirror - you may imagine it's relative some of us don't think we can afford such illusions any longer.

"We are responsible for everything" (Serres)

21:36 / 02.12.05

you may imagine it's relative some of us don't think we can afford such illusions any longer

Can you expand on this a little bit? I don't think that this is even a proper sentence, and consequently am having trouble parsing it. What exactly are you talking about?

21:44 / 03.12.05

"We are responsible for everything" (Serres)

But if humans are not superior to other organisms then why exactly are we responsible for everything? Leave it to the guinea pigs I say.

03:36 / 04.12.05

That responsibility doesn't stem from superiority; it stems from awareness. If we are aware of certain processes and their consequences on what surrounds us, we ought to, as a supposedly morally-inclined creature, aim to regulate these processes to avoid negative effects on our planet, for the benefit of other living creatures, as well as our own.

Of course, our natural moral tendencies stem from our own concerns as a race, but I do feel that as our intellectual sphere has expanded somewhat beyond our pure needs, so should our moral one.

We're not superior, and therefore leaders of, "everything". We do, however, hold a superior knowledge and a much more significantly developed intellect, and as such, to an extent, should try and protect... "everything". Theoretically, I suppose this ought to be part of our natural evolution in terms of intelect and emotion.

(Apologies for potential repetition or lack of proper thought; sleepyness is taking over but I felt like replying before I completely forgot about the thread, as my mind is currently prone to random distraction.)

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:26 / 04.12.05

Lurid said: Having said that, there is good reason to believe that we are hardwired to value humans over other animals. But this intuition, no matter how natural it seems to us, is no justification for some abstract superiority, nor does it require such. After all, I value my father over others but that doesn't commit me to having to argue that my father is significantly more intelligent, strong or generally able than other members of the human species.

I think this is key. By our own standards, we're superior, whatever that means. Flies, for example, may not see it the same way. We're the best there is at doing human stuff. To a fly, that human stuff is kind of irrelevant, really. We kill them without thinking- I doubt it crosses their minds (figure of speech- I'm not wishing to complicate the point further with the whole "minds" thing) when they wipe huge swathes of us out with disease.

15:29 / 04.12.05

I take issue with some of the unspoken assumptions in Mr. Scientist's original post. Specifically, I can't buy the notion that humans are fundamentally different from animals. We humans are descended from animals. We are animals. Currently we have found ways to insinuate ourselves on top of the food chain. Go us! In that sense, then, sure, of course we're superior. I can play chess better than my fish can, too. Then again, those same fish are a lot better at swimming, mating displays, and so forth than I am.

Does this innate 'superiority' of being on top the food chain grant us anything? I doubt it. It's a consequence of other factors, such as the long period of social evolution that brings individual humans together in an economy in order to create items, such as guns, computers, or so on, which individual humans then use to secure and better the species as a whole. Being superior doesn't grant any rights or responsibilities of its own; unfortunately, it seems that once we feel superior, we start disregarding the rights and responsibilities we already had.

Obvious example responsibility: the environment. If we fuck up the environment, then we get to live in an unpleasant, or downright harmful, world. If we fuck it up badly enough, we all die. (Not there yet.) Simple. This has nothing to do with whether or not we're superior and everything to do with consequences.

15th stated that responsibility stems from awareness; that may explain the stunning lack of responsible action in the modern world. I don't know how the world is for the rest of you, but I know an awful lot of people who are in an awful lot of debt simply because they're not aware and they don't understand the consequences of their own actions. Awareness is not a given when dealing with Homo Sapiens.

(First Head Shop post -- apologies for barging in like this; please don't kill me!)