Just a thought - Opinions anyone?

[TheTruth]

Why are humans ranked the highest, at the end of the day we are still animals in the same way we class animals, Predator and prey. Predators are the ones who vye for power over something whether it be in politics, businessess etc. Prey are those who are caught in the Predators quest for something i.e. a drug addict wants some money he'll kill/rob an innocent old lady as she sleeps for drug money. Thats one way to look it at and it's part of how i see the world, I see how every persons action is based on natural instincts for example a rich family man can either spend his money helping others or spend it on himself and his family to ensure they are happy and healthy. Just like a Lion would protect the ones he cares for, his mate, his children.

Does anyone else see things like this, or in a similar way?

[Sage]

Humans are the best animals because we're the only ones who have the brain power to come up with the notion of a 'best animal'.

[quartermaster]

Humans are the best animals because we're the only ones who have the brain power to come up with the notion of a 'best animal'.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[CaptainObvious]

Yes, we are ultimately animals and much of our behavior can be somewhat outlined by base instincts.

As for your first question, I don't know what you mean by "ranked the highest". We tend to value ourselves over others for most importantly speciesist reasons that could probably be described as animalistic in nature, but the other issue is our sentience. Sentience values other sentience. Without it, we intrinsically care less about other animals.

[Sage]

You see, why have by no means risen above our primal behavior, it's just that the way we go about said behavior has become far more nuanced. In ancient times, when we were still more like apes than modern day humans, males started gathering food and other valuable things for their mates. This is has, over millions of years, become what we view as 'dating'. The male does something for the female and shows her a good time to prove that he is a valuable mate.

[Sugaree]

We're all animals in the end anyway. It's the fact that humans can be ranked the highest because we used our intellect to make societies. Therefor, we have ranked ourselves to be the highest in rank to other animals because we have fooled ourselves into thinking it.

[2D]

We're all animals in the end anyway. It's the fact that humans can be ranked the highest because we used our intellect to make societies. Therefor, we have ranked ourselves to be the highest in rank to other animals because we have fooled ourselves into thinking it.

We haven't fool ourselves into thinking it. It's the truth. Look at any aspect of a human and compare it to any animal and we are for more advanced.

[Sage]

We haven't fool ourselves into thinking it. It's the truth. Look at any aspect of a human and compare it to any animal and we are for more advanced.

Not really, we've just evolved to adapt to living inside buildings and wearing clothes and things like that. We've thin skin and little fur and pathetic nails instead of claws or talon and our teeth are worn down. If you took a human and stripped him completely naked, he'd not fare very well in the wild.

[CaptainObvious]

Not really, we've just evolved to adapt to living inside buildings and wearing clothes and things like that. We've thin skin and little fur and pathetic nails instead of claws or talon and our teeth are worn down. If you took a human and stripped him completely naked, he'd not fare very well in the wild.

Yes, and if you deprived a lion of its claws it'd be pretty useless. Sentience is an evolutionary adaptation and pressure like any other. Furthermore, this claim is spurious on its face since we would probably continue to do quite well in our natural environment in Africa, despite our not particularly impressive physical endowment.

The claim that we've "we've just evolved to adapt to living inside buildings and wearing clothes and things like that" is wildly spurious. Humanity has existed for a remarkably short amount of time in an evolutionary sense, and our civilized period that actually includes large segments of our species population living in buildings, wearing cothes, and so forth is merely a blip on the evolutionary timescale.

Now, to argue that our sentience has changed the environment in which our current and future adaptations take place is clearly true - we as a species no longer have reproductive and survival fitness determined by particularly natural conditions, and even when they are, our advances created by our sentience enable the survival of many potentially previously unsuitable people - but to argue that such adaptation has already significantly taken place is incorrect.

[Sapphire]

We are the animals that have a developed sense and use of language.
We are the animals that have pretty much taken over the planet.
We are the animals that are at the top of the food chain on all but one continent.
We are the animals that have the most developed brains.
We are the animals with the highest intellect.

I could probably go on as well.

[CaptainObvious]

We are the animals that are at the top of the food chain on all but one continent.

That doesn't make any sense. On which continent are we not the top of the food chain in the sense of being able to use ou sentience to subjugate all life to our will? Certainly not Antarctica (the continent of which I suspect you were thinking), where our abilities in that regard are as developed as anywhere else, spite the somewhat more inhospitable conditions.

[Sapphire]

That doesn't make any sense. On which continent are we not the top of the food chain in the sense of being able to use ou sentience to subjugate all life to our will? Certainly not Antarctica (the continent of which I suspect you were thinking), where our abilities in that regard are as developed as anywhere else, spite the somewhat more inhospitable conditions.
I mean in the Arctic. Polar bears are the only animal that actively hunts humans.

Sorry, should have said "land mass" instead of continent.

[CaptainObvious]

I mean in the Arctic. Polar bears are the only animal that actively hunts humans.

Sorry, should have said "land mass" instead of continent.

But they're still not at the top of the food chain since we as a species certainly beat polar bears with our various technological aids. The only way to claim a difference is to use different criteria and purely assess physical attributes of polar bears while ignoring physical superiority of large predators on other continents.

[Sapphire]

But they're still not at the top of the food chain since we as a species certainly beat polar bears with our various technological aids. The only way to claim a difference is to use different criteria and purely assess physical attributes of polar bears while ignoring physical superiority of large predators on other continents.
Food chains are organised by what the different species predate on. An owl predates mice and as such the owl is higher in the food chain than the mouse. It has nothing to do with technological advancement.

EDIT
I may have been mistaken so ignore this.

[TheTruth]

We are the animals that have a developed sense and use of language.
We are the animals that have pretty much taken over the planet.
We are the animals that are at the top of the food chain on all but one continent.
We are the animals that have the most developed brains.
We are the animals with the highest intellect.

I could probably go on as well.

Dont know what u mean by sense but i know have many languages all over the world but its just a way of communicating, animals communicate with each other too but because we cant understand them we just dismiss the fact that they are talking to each other. We took over the planet because there was simply more of us and because we started to build things to aid us, but it didnt give us the right to take it over, we're still animals and should share it with the other animals. We are only at the top of the food chain becuase the animals we eat such as pigs and cows are defenseless and we just use them, most likely against their will. It would be different if the only two species of animals were humans and say lions, take away a humans technological advances such as a gun, take away the other things which a human can interact with to make traps or weapons and u are left with defenseless prey for lions.
Our 'developed brains' and 'high intellect' are meaningless considering the mess we're all in right now, we've done more bad than good and thats thanks to our hgh intellect, we clearly arent as good as we think we are.

[INFERNO]

We are the animals that have a developed sense and use of language.

I'm pretty sure other animals can communicate, such as birds calling out to other birds, dogs barking to other dogs, etc... . It may not sound very sophisticated but language is communication and other animals can communicate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "developed sense".


We are the animals that have pretty much taken over the planet.

True, however, we're not here permanently. Before humans were around other organisms were dominant. Consider for a moment, bacteria, viruses, etc... . They may not be true animals but they can live in areas where humans would die in without protective gear. They've been around much, much longer, they've been more successful, etc... . They kill millions of us humans before we're able to kill them. I'd say we're far from having taken over the planet.


We are the animals that have the most developed brains.

Other animals, such as dolphins have much larger brains with much larger areas of certain parts of the brain. So what is your point?


We are the animals with the highest intellect.

What evidence do you have to support that humans are above every single animal in terms of intelligence? If we look at, say, a dog, we may think we're well above it in terms of intelligence, however, how can we know? Sure we can do more things than the dog can but that's a reflection of evolution, something we had no control over.

Why are humans ranked the highest, at the end of the day we are still animals in the same way we class animals, Predator and prey.

Simple. Humans made our "ranking system" and we want to view our own group as being better than another group.


Thats one way to look it at and it's part of how i see the world, I see how every persons action is based on natural instincts for example a rich family man can either spend his money helping others or spend it on himself and his family to ensure they are happy and healthy. Just like a Lion would protect the ones he cares for, his mate, his children.

We share many behavioral as well as physical characteristics in common with other organisms, such as wanting to have high fitness.


We've thin skin and little fur and pathetic nails instead of claws or talon and our teeth are worn down. If you took a human and stripped him completely naked, he'd not fare very well in the wild.

If you're going to use that idea, then everything in the wild also has to be stripped down. If you remove the venom, thick skin, sharp teeth and claws from a Komodo Dragon and tossed it into an area full of dangerous predators with sharp teeth and the whole deal, obviously the komodo is screwed.

Food chains are organised by what the different species predate on. An owl predates mice and as such the owl is higher in the food chain than the mouse. It has nothing to do with technological advancement.

The owl doesn't follow a nicely laid out food chain in order to eat the mouse. It eats the mouse because it's physically able to and has the opportunity to get a mouse. It's the same with some sea creatures, such as certain species of squids, they may be predators to other organisms but they will turn cannabalistic at times. It has nothing to do with following a food chain.

[Sapphire]

Dont know what u mean by sense but i know have many languages all over the world but its just a way of communicating, animals communicate with each other too but because we cant understand them we just dismiss the fact that they are talking to each other. We took over the planet because there was simply more of us and because we started to build things to aid us, but it didnt give us the right to take it over, we're still animals and should share it with the other animals. We are only at the top of the food chain becuase the animals we eat such as pigs and cows are defenseless and we just use them, most likely against their will. It would be different if the only two species of animals were humans and say lions, take away a humans technological advances such as a gun, take away the other things which a human can interact with to make traps or weapons and u are left with defenseless prey for lions.
Our 'developed brains' and 'high intellect' are meaningless considering the mess we're all in right now, we've done more bad than good and thats thanks to our hgh intellect, we clearly arent as good as we think we are.
The fact that we have complex, expressive languages while animals don't is what sets us apart with regard to language.
Your point that we are only the dominant species on the planet beacuse we've built things to aid us is, quite frankly, short sighted. Ants, bees, wasps and spiders (for example) all build things either to aid their capturing prey or their survival.
More should be done to share the planet with animals but that isn't to say that we don't share at all. Look at conservation projects and nature reserves if you need proof that we are sharing.
I don't see what you are getting at when you point out that our prey are helpless and probably don't want to be eaten. Do you think the gazelle that is caught by the cheetah actually wanted to be caught?
Our developed brains and intellect are not meaningless because of any situation. They allow us to communicate on deep levels, to think in abstract ways and to continuously invent new things.

I'm pretty sure other animals can communicate, such as birds calling out to other birds, dogs barking to other dogs, etc... . It may not sound very sophisticated but language is communication and other animals can communicate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "developed sense".As I said to TheTruth, no other species can use language on the same level as humans.

True, however, we're not here permanently. Before humans were around other organisms were dominant. Consider for a moment, bacteria, viruses, etc... . They may not be true animals but they can live in areas where humans would die in without protective gear. They've been around much, much longer, they've been more successful, etc... . They kill millions of us humans before we're able to kill them. I'd say we're far from having taken over the planet.I'm not talking about bacteria, viruses or plants. I am talking about animals - as is everyone else in this thread.

Other animals, such as dolphins have much larger brains with much larger areas of certain parts of the brain. So what is your point?My point is that our brains are the most developed and complex.
The ratio of brain weight to body weight is greater in humans than dolphins. Human brains have a more complex structure and stronger neural connections. Dolphins have more developed primitive areas of the brain, while the other areas are poorly developed - these areas are well developed in humans.

http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dolphins/2-3-How-does-the-dolphin-brain-compare-to-the-human-brain.html

What evidence do you have to support that humans are above every single animal in terms of intelligence? If we look at, say, a dog, we may think we're well above it in terms of intelligence, however, how can we know? Sure we can do more things than the dog can but that's a reflection of evolution, something we had no control over.What has our lack of control over evolution got to do with anything? I ask because if you put things that occurred through evolution down as not relevant when comparing two different species then you can't compare them.

The owl doesn't follow a nicely laid out food chain in order to eat the mouse. It eats the mouse because it's physically able to and has the opportunity to get a mouse. It's the same with some sea creatures, such as certain species of squids, they may be predators to other organisms but they will turn cannabalistic at times. It has nothing to do with following a food chain.
Please explain this again as it's not making much sense.

It looks as if you are saying that owls don't actively hunt mice (which they do) and that it is simply that a hungry owl and a mouse are in the same place at the same time. And I have no idea where cannabalism came into the equation...

[Sage]

If you're going to use that idea, then everything in the wild also has to be stripped down. If you remove the venom, thick skin, sharp teeth and claws from a Komodo Dragon and tossed it into an area full of dangerous predators with sharp teeth and the whole deal, obviously the komodo is screwed.


Not so. The Komodo Dragon has all those things naturally in it already. It's simply part of its body. Clothing and weapons are human inventions.

[Sapphire]

Not so. The Komodo Dragon has all those things naturally in it already. It's simply part of its body. Clothing and weapons are human inventions.
Aren't our weapons the equivalent of a spiders web? Both a weapon and a spiders web are there to aid survival by rendering the prey helpless and neither are body parts.

Also, there is a variety of spider which digs holes in the ground, covers it up with silk and waits for its prey to fall in. This is on par with techniques humans use to catch prey as well and (again) are not part of the animals body.

[Sage]

Aren't our weapons the equivalent of a spiders web? Both a weapon and a spiders web are there to aid survival by rendering the prey helpless and neither are body parts.

Also, there is a variety of spider which digs holes in the ground, covers it up with silk and waits for its prey to fall in. This is on par with techniques humans use to catch prey as well and (again) are not part of the animals body.

Spiders produce webs themselves, however. They have organs (organs? innards and shit.) that other creatures do not that make the production of webs possible. The tools we create are forged from objects we find in nature.

[Sapphire]

Spiders produce webs themselves, however. They have organs (organs? innards and shit.) that other creatures do not that make the production of webs possible. The tools we create are forged from objects we find in nature.
It's very similar. Humans and spiders create techniques to survive by using what nature has equipped them with (humans use their ability to think in an abstract way and spiders use their ability to create silk) in conjunction with things in the environment (rocks, water, soil, trees etc).

[CaptainObvious]

Food chains are organised by what the different species predate on. An owl predates mice and as such the owl is higher in the food chain than the mouse. It has nothing to do with technological advancement.

EDIT
I may have been mistaken so ignore this.

Food chains as a linear construct don't even make sense when applied to the actual functioning of the world, but to continue the metaphor it's questionable if you could even put polar bears above us in the sense of predation because in almost all circumstances our technology renders us more likely to kill (and I suppose, eat) polar bears than vice versa.

[INFERNO]

As I said to TheTruth, no other species can use language on the same level as humans.

That may be true, however, they can still use languages. You initially said that humans can use language and presumably other animals cannot as though it's an all-or-nothing concept.


My point is that our brains are the most developed and complex.
The ratio of brain weight to body weight is greater in humans than dolphins. Human brains have a more complex structure and stronger neural connections. Dolphins have more developed primitive areas of the brain, while the other areas are poorly developed - these areas are well developed in humans.

http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dolphins/2-3-How-does-the-dolphin-brain-compare-to-the-human-brain.html

Ah, that is what you meant, I was unsure if you meant that humans have the largest brain or not.


What has our lack of control over evolution got to do with anything? I ask because if you put things that occurred through evolution down as not relevant when comparing two different species then you can't compare them.

I never said they were not relevant. I'm saying that humans having greater intelligence than other animals is something we and the other animals have no control over. You stated that humans are smarter than every other animal out there and each of these animals, including humans, developed differently so I'm saying you cannot take an evolutionary nor physical view to support your argument. Speaking of which, you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim.


Please explain this again as it's not making much sense.

It looks as if you are saying that owls don't actively hunt mice (which they do) and that it is simply that a hungry owl and a mouse are in the same place at the same time. And I have no idea where cannabalism came into the equation...

I have no clue how you got the idea that I apparently said owls don't hunt mice and it's simply a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What I said was in regards to the food chains as they're simply theoretical models that the animals don't necessarily have to obey. My evidence supporting the notion that animals don't have to obey the theoretical constructs that humans apply to them is that squids can become cannabalisitc.

In simpler terms, the food chains are basic, unidirectional constructs that humans made in order to try to simplify the environment. In real-life though the animals don't follow these constructs every single time.

Not so. The Komodo Dragon has all those things naturally in it already. It's simply part of its body. Clothing and weapons are human inventions.

You said before that if you stripped a human down and tossed it into the unstripped wild, then the human is toast. I'm simply saying that if you strip any animal down to a point where you remove its defenses and attacks, then it's screwed too. It doesn't matter if it's part of its body or not because a weapon is a weapon regardless if you pick it off the ground (i.e. a rock) or if you have poisonous venom.

[Sapphire]

That may be true, however, they can still use languages. You initially said that humans can use language and presumably other animals cannot as though it's an all-or-nothing concept.I said that we are the animals that have a developed sense of (by that I mean "understanding of") and use of language.

I never said they were not relevant. I'm saying that humans having greater intelligence than other animals is something we and the other animals have no control over. You stated that humans are smarter than every other animal out there and each of these animals, including humans, developed differently so I'm saying you cannot take an evolutionary nor physical view to support your argument. Speaking of which, you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim.It doesn't matter how it happened. The fact is that we are more intelligent than other animals. The fact that evolution is responsible doesn't diminish it.

http://science.samxxzy.ns02.info/cgi/reprint/sci;303/5656/318.pdf <-- this has a section on intelligence and illustrates how, in comparison to humans, animal intelligence is restricted.

I have no clue how you got the idea that I apparently said owls don't hunt mice and it's simply a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What I said was in regards to the food chains as they're simply theoretical models that the animals don't necessarily have to obey. My evidence supporting the notion that animals don't have to obey the theoretical constructs that humans apply to them is that squids can become cannabalisitc.

In simpler terms, the food chains are basic, unidirectional constructs that humans made in order to try to simplify the environment. In real-life though the animals don't follow these constructs every single time.I never said that animals stick rigidly to food chains or webs so why you got started with this is beyond me.
We are at the top of the food chain/web (regardless of whether animal X sometimes deviates from the man-made structure or not) and that was my point.

[INFERNO]

I said that we are the animals that have a developed sense of (by that I mean "understanding of") and use of language.

And I'm saying that if you make that statement, then other animals, such as dogs must not use language to communicate. Doesn't make that much sense does it, unless of course you think that all non-human animals simply make random noises.


It doesn't matter how it happened. The fact is that we are more intelligent than other animals. The fact that evolution is responsible doesn't diminish it.

http://science.samxxzy.ns02.info/cgi/reprint/sci;303/5656/318.pdf <-- this has a section on intelligence and illustrates how, in comparison to humans, animal intelligence is restricted.

I'm unable to view the article and I'm not planning to sign up for it just to view that one article.


I never said that animals stick rigidly to food chains or webs so why you got started with this is beyond me.

Perhaps because when I stated that animals don't strictly adhere to food chains you were debating it making it seem that you weren't in agreement with it. You also seemed clueless as to my side of the argument, which wouldn't make much sense if you actually agreed with it.

I assumed that you weren't in agreement with what I was saying because it would be pointless for two people to debate something where they share the same views. Write your posts clearer so it's easier to figure out if you're in agreement or not.

[Sapphire]

And I'm saying that if you make that statement, then other animals, such as dogs must not use language to communicate. Doesn't make that much sense does it, unless of course you think that all non-human animals simply make random noises.We are the ones who can use complex and expressive language, whereas animals can't. This is what I was saying.

I'm unable to view the article and I'm not planning to sign up for it just to view that one article. Let me copy and paste for you then.

What are the factors that distinguish human intelligence? A major distinctive feature of human intelligence is flexibility. Animals, by contrast, are specialists. Bees are adept at sending messages through their dances, beavers at building dams, the nuthatch at remembering the location of thousands of caches of acorns it has buried. But each of these species is imprisoned by its adaptation; none can duplicate the achievement of the other. The nuthatch cannot build dams; bees do not have an uncanny memory for hidden caches of food; beavers cannot send messages. Humans, by contrast, could duplicate all these achievements and endlessly more. Why? Is recursive language the key to human flexibility?

To understand human flexibility, let us return to the sensory-motor system, this time to the size and number of elements in the motor repertoire. The motor flexibility of a species, its play, even the technologies it develops, are all reflected in the composition of its motor repertoire. A contrast between chimpanzees and monkeys illustrates this point. A group of resting hamadryas baboons looks regal, all sitting in the same posture; a group of chimpanzees looks slovenly, all reclining in different postures (21). Not only motor plasticity but also play is highly limited in most monkeys. Technology follows suit. A form of play in chimpanzees, inserting sticks into holes, reappears in the straws they insert into orifices in termite mounds (22). Baboons, despite protracted observation of chimpanzees, never develop any technology for obtaining termites; they scrape up termites from the ground that have been left behind by the chimpanzees.

Not only can chimpanzees reproduce playful acts, they can simulate or image the actions, using mental representations to guide their problem-solving (23). When shown fruit overhead, a chimpanzee can picture placing two sticks together (a form of play), obtain the sticks, and use them to knock down the fruit (the match between play and technology is imperfect: Although needing sticks that form a vertical extension, the chimpanzee may attach the sticks at a 90° angle) (24).

The chimpanzee’s simulation of motor acts, although limited, represents a preexisting capacity for a final development that appears only in humans. The human can recombine mental elements—mixing the features of one object with another—producing such things as ghosts (objects to which the transcendent properties of thought have been given, so that they can pass through walls), plants whose flowers have faces, humans who can fly, and so on. In other words, chimpanzees can represent what they perceive, whereas humans can represent what they imagine. The recombining of mental elements makes the counterfactual a natural step, and leads to science (as well as art) (25). Galileo’s world without friction, where objects set in motion remain in motion, is clearly an imagined world and not a perceived one.

Human intelligence and evolution are the only flexible processes on Earth capable of producing endless solutions to the problems confronted by living creatures. Did evolution, in producing human intelligence, outstrip itself? Apparently so, for although evolution can do “engineering,” changing actual structures and producing new devices, it cannot do science, changing
imaginary structures and producing new theories or explanations of the world.
Clearly, language and recursion are not the
sole contributors to human uniqueness.Perhaps because when I stated that animals don't strictly adhere to food chains you were debating it making it seem that you weren't in agreement with it. You also seemed clueless as to my side of the argument, which wouldn't make much sense if you actually agreed with it.

I assumed that you weren't in agreement with what I was saying because it would be pointless for two people to debate something where they share the same views. Write your posts clearer so it's easier to figure out if you're in agreement or not.I wasn't debating it, I simply didn't understand what you had said initially and so asked you to explain further. If you had explained your point more clearly in the first place then I wouldn't have had to ask you to explain it again.

[Hyper]

Short answer: because humans can make sharp things and stick them through bigger things!

[Death]

Why humans I thought of as superior or 'the top'?

Because we are 'intelligent' enough to think of that. Religion also plays a big part.