Anthropocentrism

[Illegalsmile]

i think the difference between animals and humans is animals don't let bullshit get in the way.

Humans are amphibians - half spirit and half animal. As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals
they inhabit time.
C. S. Lewis
i just thought that quote was very nice

 

[st.bot.32]

I think the only difference is we have en exceptionally large neocortex

But that's kind of the point, right? If we didn't have that part of our brain this whole discussion would be irrelevant, not to mention physically impossible in the first place. However, it's possible to have this discussion, along with understanding that our actions as a species have consequences. For example this thread and recent discussions.. those humans who are destroying our biosphere cannot claim they lacked the capability to understand what they were doing.

 

[Faust]

I think the only difference is we have en exceptionally large neocortex

But that's kind of the point, right? If we didn't have that part of our brain this whole discussion would be irrelevant, not to mention physically impossible in the first place. However, it's possible to have this discussion, along with understanding that our actions as a species have consequences. For example this thread and recent discussions.. those humans who are destroying our biosphere cannot claim they lacked the capability to understand what they were doing.

What I mean is, the only reason why some of us think we're above animals is because we have the ability to think we're above them. We're not reálly above animals. We're just another species and the world is not our heritage nor do we have to look after it. (Unless we want to).

 

[IJesusChrist]

What I mean is, the only reason why some of us think we're above animals is because we have the ability to think we're above them. We're not reálly above animals. We're just another species and the world is not our heritage nor do we have to look after it. (Unless we want to).

1+

 

[st.bot.32]

is because we have the ability to think we're above them. We're not reálly above animals. We're just another species and the world is not our heritage nor do we have to look after it. (Unless we want to).

We don't have to do anything, but.. from a pure survival perspective, we've become aware that it is important to preserve the diversity of the biosphere if we as a species will be able to.. survive.

I agree that we're not above animals in an objective sense, I find the idea absurd. But there are definite historical reasons humans think that way, it's the result more than it is the cause. A definite hierarchy exists on our planet. Animals have been made to serve our needs, labor for us, feed us, and they aren't capable of organized rebellion to defend themselves when we drive a species into extinction for a few more acres of farmland. Plus, lots of humans get a thrill from dominating animals.. they pay money to go hunt and shoot animals for sport, train animals to do tricks etc. I mean, other than being able to think we are above animals, we have the technological capability to go with it (and opposable thumbs) and one capability is going to reinforce the other, and it has.. probably that's why major religions evolved to teach that humans have a divine purpose that is "above" animals in their grand scheme of things. It's only very recently that we've seen a major societal push to change the way we treat animals, and a lot of that comes from what seems to be an empathetic perspective.

 

[IJesusChrist]

We don't have to do anything, but.. from a pure survival perspective, we've become aware that it is important to preserve the diversity of the biosphere if we as a species will be able to.. survive.
I agree that we're not above animals in an objective sense, I find the idea absurd. But there are definite historical reasons humans think that way, it's the result more than it is the cause. A definite hierarchy exists on our planet. Animals have been made to serve our needs, labor for us, feed us, and they aren't capable of organized rebellion to defend themselves when we drive a species into extinction for a few more acres of farmland. Plus, lots of humans get a thrill from dominating animals.. they pay money to go hunt and shoot animals for sport, train animals to do tricks etc. I mean, other than being able to think we are above animals, we have the technological capability to go with it (and opposable thumbs) and one capability is going to reinforce the other, and it has.. probably that's why major religions evolved to teach that humans have a divine purpose that is "above" animals in their grand scheme of things. It's only very recently that we've seen a major societal push to change the way we treat animals, and a lot of that comes from what seems to be an empathetic perspective.

I'm not sure why this forum is behaving like this it's extremely hard to write any kind of response since I can't really see what I'm writing - but:
You bring up a good counter point, not really a counterpoint but a good point: Empathy.
There is an almost guilt as well as the unexplainable feeling of empathy for animals. The mere existance of empathy must prove that we are not much more complex asthat animals as we can relate to them - we feel bad for them. However we can do this with a building or structure too - something with grate history being orn down we will empathize for, and be sad that it is "going to die" is this the same empathy we show for a pig about to meet it's demise with a quick shock to the back of the neck and a slitting of the throat? Either way in the end, we are just a chemical bunch of oddities that have created possibly the most complex planet in the universe and that is as far as I'll take it. I don't believe we have a moral obligation to sustain life, but it is a compelling feeling to do so.

 

[tryptonaut]

But the thing is, that we human beings (and this can be seen as somehow anthropocentric) have the capacity to know it's actually not right to just kill for killings sake.

We have the capacity to know this, yet it still happens
whereas in nature no animal kills for killing sake, its for survival

But sometimes survival could be easier if the animals weren't killing each other that much. Sea lions are extremely aggressive animals for example that kill the offspring of their own kind. The species would more easily survive if they didn't do that, but their ego drives them to try and only get their genes into the gene pool.
Wild dolphins, although they look so nice, are really aggressive animals who constantly fight each other. Male dolphins usually only reach half the age of the female dolphins because of the constant stress of fighting and/or the possible deadly outcome of the fights.

If you argue that these animals only do that for surviving - then we as humans also wage war for survival (kill the opponent to feature our own genes). We just brought the monkey-fight to another level with nuclear weapons and missiles because we can.

 

[IJesusChrist]

But the thing is, that we human beings (and this can be seen as somehow anthropocentric) have the capacity to know it's actually not right to just kill for killings sake.

We have the capacity to know this, yet it still happens
whereas in nature no animal kills for killing sake, its for survival

But sometimes survival could be easier if the animals weren't killing each other that much. Sea lions are extremely aggressive animals for example that kill the offspring of their own kind. The species would more easily survive if they didn't do that, but their ego drives them to try and only get their genes into the gene pool.
Wild dolphins, although they look so nice, are really aggressive animals who constantly fight each other. Male dolphins usually only reach half the age of the female dolphins because of the constant stress of fighting and/or the possible deadly outcome of the fights.

If you argue that these animals only do that for surviving - then we as humans also wage war for survival (kill the opponent to feature our own genes). We just brought the monkey-fight to another level with nuclear weapons and missiles because we can.

I think its an important question to ask why does one want his/her genes to survive... why does the end of a family tree seem unacceptable? Where is evolution... heading, what is the force behind it?

 

[Crimzen]

theres a difference with killing over a female and killing for 'political' reasons which are usually nothing to do with the one whos killing

there is no force behind it, it simply works with whoever has procreated
at this point in civilization though i cant see how survival of the fittest works with healthcare etc etc.

 

[IJesusChrist]

theres a difference with killing over a female and killing for 'political' reasons which are usually nothing to do with the one whos killing

there is no force behind it, it simply works with whoever has procreated
at this point in civilization though i cant see how survival of the fittest works with healthcare etc etc.

I think the meaning of my question went over your head.

 

[LsDxMdma]

the only way we are superior to other animals or 'beings' is our own knowledge that we exist...and even that is up for debate, who's to say that dolphins, or other smart mammals don't know that theyre here

 

[Crimzen]

i'm pretty sure they've proven that dolphins know they are here and have some kind of consciousness
and elephants who've never seen a mirror recognize themselves when shown one
and i don't know about cephalopods but they've been shown to be incredibly intelligent and i wouldn't be surprised if they were also know of themselves

and IJC
genes are greedy
the nature of a gene is to survive and spread more of the same gene
apparently genes have a large impact on our minds and i believe instincts come from genes
instinct acts on you more than you may think, e.g. yawning is an old social instinct throwback from when we were apes
so basically genes make you spread them by making you want to
the stronger the genes are the better chance they have at beating the weaker genes.
this is how evolution can continue, without the genetic instinctual drive to spread our seed/genes evolution would fall over
cruelty and killing are a part of life. its an unfortunate fact, all you have to do is look at any time in human history and you will find both

 

[IJesusChrist]

and IJC
genes are greedy
the nature of a gene is to survive and spread more of the same gene
apparently genes have a large impact on our minds and i believe instincts come from genes
instinct acts on you more than you may think, e.g. yawning is an old social instinct throwback from when we were apes
so basically genes make you spread them by making you want to
the stronger the genes are the better chance they have at beating the weaker genes.
this is how evolution can continue, without the genetic instinctual drive to spread our seed/genes evolution would fall over
cruelty and killing are a part of life. its an unfortunate fact, all you have to do is look at any time in human history and you will find both

A gene doesn't want to survive, my question is: at what point did chemistry become biology. At what point did biology become survival.

Why do genes want to exist forever?

 

[Psyolopher]

This has turned to a debate im to hiii for right now,
But its like...
The self centered egomaniac behavior is not good in such mental dosages.
Its like a mental box, a cage.
If we get out of it, more caring and responsebility comes.
Why the fuck dont we use it?
oh well, just to some people.

The point is, we as a whole have to take responsebility.
For we are not just genetical machines at all, that strive to reproduce.
We have feelings and all that jazz.