Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes; Humans are better than animals. Animals do not have sentience and will not develop sentience within their lifetimes. If and when we come across a creature that is also sentient, then their lives should also be protected.

Proof of human sentience as compared to the lack of animal sentience is everywhere; No animal has ever written books about, well, anything, no animal makes use of complex machinery like we do (The best they can do is poking a stick down a termite hole, come on. Not even flint axes yet.), etc. Pretty evident difference.

Not to say humanity is all that smart in general, but, as a whole, we have shown greater intelligence and sentience than any other creature we've met.

I'll say it in here: Pyro, you're being unnecessarily rude. I never told you what to think or, unless I'm mistaken, even incorrectly assumed what you think.



Was I wrong when I guessed that you are okay with killing bacteria for self-defence, sperm cells for no reason, and animals for food purposes? You said nothing to correct this, only bitched about my apparently correct assumptions.

The last statement isn't contradictory at all. Humans, on a whole, are very unintelligent, based on my opinion. But even Pyro is far more intelligent than animals. wink

Also, just because there are some cultures where this or that didn't happen does not negate what I said. If we are to not be racist and assume that all humans are equal in mental and physical qualities, the fact that there are cultures that have managed these things show that humans are capable of these things. But -no- animal has done those things, showing pretty convincingly that they are not capable of doing those things.

But you know, show me a monkey, and monkey's are fairly intelligent, who is capable of programming in C++, driving a car down the street without hitting anything, and hell, posting on silly forums on the internet, and I will admit that it is an equal.

It depends on your definition of "nest." As part of survival training, I've made my own shelter plenty of times. Perhaps I haven't formed a nice round nest up high in a tree out of spit and leaves, but what I did make worked well enough. wink I've even "woven" one out of branches. It's not that hard. Besides which, I've started fires, with matches and flint/steel, I've helped build a house, I've cleared trails, and so on and so forth.

However, I would posit that it's more of a sign of intelligence to not bother with things like nests when you've got beds. I mean, if we, as a society, are capable of creating soft comfortable beds and houses, why should we make uncomfortable nests?

Also, the ability to do things based on instincts isn't a sign of intelligence. It's a sign of the ability to survive.

Oh, I know about the sign language stuff. They do have a limited amount of sentience. But not at our level. Not yet, at least.

You'll notice, though, that very few people support eating chimps, though.

No, my point was that some cultures developed without seeing a need for a written language. You can't prove that animals don't attempt to write things down because they're not intelligent enough to do so. They might be able to, but how could we test this? How can you tell, say, a community of dolphins to come up with a written language?



rolleyes First you'd have to teach a monkey--and species of monkeys differ in levels of intelligence--what a computer is. Then what a keyboard is, and how to use one. Then get it to understand that you want it to come up with a program. Specifically, one written in a particular language. Then you'd have to teach it the language. A five year old human could do none of what you described. Still, you believe it should have the right to not be hunted for food.



Soft, comfortable beds stuffed with....feathers? wink

Or are you referring to inventing polymers and weaving on an industrial scale? What's easier, and arguably, makes more common sense: weaving a bed sheet, building a frame, constructing a mattress--or just collecting a pile of things that grew off your body? Nests are the most comfortable resting place for a bird's body shape, flat beds the most comfortable for a human's shape. (Birds, however, usually sleep "standing up" once they've fledged).



Surely the more intelligent have a better survival rate, no?

A good example of how humans are smarter is the point to which medicine has evolved. The ability to prolong lifespan and lower morbidity and mortality is essential to a species. Once you've got sufficient nutrition, shelter and protection from conventional predators, the next step is protection from infection and disease.

Though other animals treat illnesses themselves, too... 3nodding

Ahem, repost, with infasece added



As for the flesh of humans and the flesh of animals, you want to eat a human? Be my guest. I dont see a diffrence out side of riligious or philisophacal arguments. On a natural scale we're all equal. But, simply because I personly wont eat human flesh, dosnt mean I see a human as any higher then I would a dog, a fish, or a protazoan.

No I dont. I simply dont want to. If I saw humans as a higher form of life deserving more respect, I wouldnt agree that canablism is ok at all. But in survival, do what you must to live, and only in survival. Its why I eat meat: to survive. I wish I realy could live off vegitables alone. But, I cant. People can say all they want, research all they want, but the thing is, I've tried, and it nearly killed me.