I was thinking about this today, should animals be treated as equals to humans? Discuss.

I think it's somehow a give-and-take situation. We are depending on animals (food, cotton from sheep, guide dog, ...) and to be honest, a lot of animals are depending on us because they couldn't survive in today's environment (--> somehow human's fault too ) if we didn't keep them in special areas or so. That's why I think we have to take responsibility and treat animals with respect because we have a great influence on the fragile balance in our environment. Moreover, even animals have feelings: They feel pain, help us in a lot of situations (f. ex. a dolphin saving a human in a distress at sea) and are able to develop a deep relationship with a human (depends on the animal). So all in all, it's my opinion that you can't treat them exactly equal to humans cause they lack human intellect and overview but on the other hand they aren't just our toys. We have to treat them respectfully and accept them as fellows during our life. As I said: A give-and-take :)

All things were created for a reason even the smallest insect has a perpose so why shouldn't they be treated equal

>>3 Ok, so I guess we shouldn't kill insects anymore because we can't kill humans. That makes it equal right? Well what about when the these insects multiply and begin spreading diseases that start killing people? Or maybe these insects are so great in number that you cannot function properly on a day to day basis? Eating food/crops? etc.
I'm sticking with human interests first, animals second. Of course we should still treat them with respect and not torture/maim them or such things, but its a dog eat dog world out there. We just happen to be top dog.

I think they should be treated with respect but that is not the same as being treated equally. If animals where to be treated equally there would be no meat or fish for you to buy at the store or market and no wool from sheep because in order to get that you would have to murder the animals for meat or "attack" the animals to shave them. That is no excuse to abuse them. I believe it is morally wrong to cage them for their whole life where they can't move around as some companies do to boost profit. To use animals to obtain things humans need is one thing but to abuse them during the short life they have is another. Basically, if you're going to kill somethings, you may as well give it the chance to enjoy life while it can.

Honestly, I thinkt that they are absolutely not equal. As the ruling mammals of the planet, all other animals are beneath humans. No matter how people chose to look at it, the human species have a higher intellect than any other species we have come across.
Now, in some aspects, other animals are higher than humans in the fact that they do not let their emotions rule over them, but nonetheless, humans will be higher than any other animal.

(Preface: Studying Wildlife Conservation. I have taught ecology and animal studies for three years. I am 19.)

>>1 >>7 The idea of animals and humans being viewed the same way is deeply foolish, but before going on an ALF-style tirade hear me out.
The process of viewing an animal's situation as you would a human's is called anthropomorphism (Disney loves doing this. Watch Bambi for example, or any of the happy forest critters in any other animated film). People who follow an anthropomorphic lifestyle often view the value of wildlife as someone would see themselves in a funhouse mirror. The image of what things are, have been, and the goals for the future are all primarily the same, but it's so heavily distorted that you cannot act on your morals without becoming a hypocrite.

For example, why is it considered a bad thing when a man is treated "like a dog" or "like a mule" etc?

Because ANIMALS. and HUMANS. are DIF.FER.ENT.

You should not treat a bird as you would a human, because a bird needs different things to survive, must act differently, must be a BIRD.

Wildlife, as well as all other life, is considered to exist for no more than 6 factors:
Commercial usage
Game usage
Aesthetic value
Ethical reasons (I.E. a species should exist for it has an intrinsic right to exist.)
Scientific value
Ecological balance

Zealot groups such as Peta try to market a single point in this (if you were wondering...it's ethical...it's kinda in their name) but refuse to accept that any of the other five hold any value.

This is where hypocracy comes in. You see, you can live on only plant matter, wearing only clothes made of hemp, and still be a deplorable leech to the sustainability of life in an area. Anything you do draws back into nature somehow, and being high and mighty because you didn't do it first-hand is a hollow victory.

Let's say you oppose hunting of all forms for instance, and you decide to interfere with "them rednecks" during a seasonal deer hunt. Do you realize what you've just done? Let's take it full-scale:

>No deer hunting in a season.
>Brush and saplings are over-consumed during the winter by the massive unrestrained population.
>Other animals begin to die due to food/habitat/cover loss.
>Areas practicing ecologically balanced forestry cannot harvest. Timber costs skyrocket.
>Non-ecological forest owners take advantage and cut anyway. The area fails to regenerate for more than twice as long. Scars on the landscape become observable.
>Accidents involving deer explode, especially on roadways, now causing human casualties along with severe loss of wildlife.
>Human population (ecologically-minded, hunters, damn near everyone) hate you for what you've done. Exploitation of wildlife occurs simply to spite you.
>Predator populations expand, eventually covering up for your mistakes. As per the track record of common megafauna, there's a whole world of issues that arise from this as well.

Doesn't sound so Earth-friendly now, does it?

The point is, you can't approach humans and animals in the same ways. We are not, and never will be, the same. As a dominant species we have the ability to manipulate the world to our choosing, but doing so upsets the balance of nature. The goal is not to domineer over it, nor try to raise animals to our level, but sacrifice just a little bit of ourselves for the sake of everything else around us.

Why can't we just do that?

(In that last post, I meant >>3, not >>7)

Unfortunately can't pot pics in Main, but for anyone who read my last post around the part of "anthropomorphism" and thought, "what thinking human being would actually do something like that?" well, I fought about that issue not to long ago.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/375928_10151207195498688_269391299_n.jpg

A friend of mine posted this not too long ago. It got a few "likes" but no one noticed that the two things in this picture had absolutely nothing to do with each other. So, I pointed it out, and all the sudden people started coming out of the woodwork and agreeing.
Friend didn't like that, decided "doing something like that for an animal is too unfair to people" and deleted all of our comments.

People DO think this. Our generation likes to believe that humans should be entitled to the greatest of everything, even bodily restrictions, not because of our population issues but because "some bird it getting more protection than human life."


I want to see this thread keep going, I will be watching it.

Humans and animal are both just creatures which dwell on this planet. We may have evolved mentally, but we are still just creatures. It is only because we are intelligent enough to regard ourselves as more important that we do.

May I add, that you also make reckless mistakes at times. You do in fact regard ourselfs as more important to the animal kingdom as you say but...make more stupid choices in life I'm sure are far worse than the animals could attempt.

I feel that we should treat them as equals (and not just because I'm a vegetarian :P). Animals are intelligent creatures that feel pain and have emotions just like we do, so yes.

There will be a bunch of human bashing in this post before I get to the actual question.

I believe that all animals are equal. Humans are a type of animal, whether you like it or not. What's so great about humans? Their size? There are many other animals larger and stronger than humans. Their language? Dolphins have been shown to have a language that may be even more complex than human language. Aside from that, most animals are observant enough that they can communicate without language. Yet as humans, communicating without some form of language is nearly impossible. We're pitiful in that aspect. Technology? Yes, this is one of the main things that sets them apart from other animals. However, other insects and animals all have things that set them apart from other insects and animals, as well.

I believe that technology will be our downfall in the end. As much as I love it, the advancement of technology has done little good outside of the medical field. We have killed off countless species (more than any other single type of creature before us), destroyed the Earth, polluted space, abandoned our instincts, et cetera.

Regarding language: I find it disgusting that we rely on language so much. I love language! I honestly do. I love learning foreign languages and using language to create interesting pieces of literature. However, I believe we're too reliant on it. Few us us pay attention to body language as much as we should. Lying is a common concept because it's so easy to fabricate things using language. It's disgusting. As much as I've tried to get myself as aware of my surroundings as possible and as adept at reading people in real life as possible, it's not something that's a major part of our blood anymore. As animals, we are always evolving, and we have been evolving in relation to our customs. Things that weren't necessary have been thrown away and new things that are necessary have been brought in. That's the way evolution works.

In relation to instincts: we don't use them. Simple as that. Humans are so caught up in the "advanced" ideas of logic and reasoning that they've decided to think that the idea of instinct is primitive. Some people know how to listen to their instincts, but it's a skill that's sparse and spread.

In regards to destroying the Earth: we do it a lot. You'll notice that dogs don't poop where they sleep. Why? Because they know they would be destroying their home. So why do humans dump their trash all over Earth? Why do we pollute rivers and streams? I'll tell you: laziness and ignorance. We're so caught up in the lives that society has thrust upon us that we can't even so much as waste an extra minute to think about the consequences of all our actions put together.

I'm no exception, either. Society is life these days. As much as I don't like our species, it's not something I can change. Even if I just consider myself an animal, all I can do is go with the flow. As much as I may enjoy preaching about my beliefs, it doesn't mean anyone is going to agree with me. It doesn't mean anything is going to change. Society is like the boss of the hardest dungeon in an MMO - you need a large party of people who have been traning together for a long time to beat it. Unfortunately, most people are so entranced by the idea of society that the thought of going back to "barbaric, animalistic ways"--back to the time when we actually had to work for our food and protect ourselves--is a stupid idea. I don't doubt every one of you reading this feels the same way.

However, I don't share your feelings. I'm an earthy kind of person, and I feel like the only way for humans to save themselves is to shut down the goddamn factories, disarm and stop making all the bombs, and stop with all the drama. There's a reason people use the phrase "human nature" to refer to people's bad habits - because humanity itself is a bad habit.

We're all going to kill each other. Someone is going to set off a nuke, so everyone else is going to set off a nuke, and we'll end up killing ourselves and everything on the earth. If/when that happens, I hope that God never decides to remake us.

I do believe in the food chain. I understand that we have to kill other animals to eat and claim territory to live. However, humans went too far. And to be honest, looking back at wars and exploration, humans are fucking insane. There's a man in the sky controlling everything? Everything came from nothing? It's okay to kill off Native Americans because they're not as classy as you? People are lesser than you because of skin color? You're a 'faggot' if you don't like the same kind of music?

What the fuck is wrong with you people? If you're so determined to continue having your sense of superiority as a human, at least treat your fellow humans properly! /endrage

Allow me to leave this year: society, politics, religion, language, et cetera is amazing. They're the greatest, most interesting things that humans have ever created. However, they're entirely unnecessary and have only lead to ridiculous conflicts.

Moving onto the topic at hand, all of it really does tie back into the post before this. I believe that humans are animals and should be treated as thus. You're not better because you're a human - you're better because there are other humans who can kill things.

Lets be honest, guys. If 500 hungry tigers were let loose in Manhattan, where there would be far more humans, how many humans do you think would die? A lot. The only humans who wouldn't die would be the ones who were helped by superior humans; the only ones that would survive would be the ones who were smart enough to find shelter and those who have the technology necessary to kill them. Tigers--like most predators--are stronger and out of our league as animals. Technology and strategy are the only things we have on our side compared to other predators who have brute strength, power, instinct, and a need to survive.

However, it's because I don't want to die that I don't think we should treat ourselves as humans. Kind of hypocritical, huh? If we were to put ourselves on the same level as animals, we would all be dead. Technology is fine and all, but not enough of us have weapons necessary to win against predators.

Hell, we can't even use our instincts and abundant intelligence enough to stay safe from nature. Drop an adult in the middle of the jungle and they'll sure to die between a couple of hours to a couple of days. What from? Starvation. Poisoning. Unlike other animals, we don't have the instincts, the knowledge, or the will to gain the knowledge that's necessary to determine what is edible and what isn't. Insects and animals automatically know what they can and can't eat. Humans in modern countries? We don't. Why? Because it's not built into us anymore. We have been domesticating animals and growing our own food for so long that it's not necessary knowledge.

That's yet another reason why we would die if we were put on the same level as animals.

Because we would fail as animals, we have to pretend that we are superior as humans because we have technology necessary to tame predators. You know, that technology that most of us don't keep on us anyway? Individual humans are powerless. We rely on the idea of a higher authority to protect us from both other animals and other 'humans.' Because we cannot protect ourselves, most of us would fail living outside of society.

Anyway, I've rambled on too much.
Final point: We have no other choice. As humans, we would die if we acted like animals. As humans, we don't act like animals. If we tried ot make animals act like us, it wouldn't work because they're far superior to us when it comes to survival, and they're not interested in our ideas of equality and society.

Animals just see us as a part of the cycle. We hurt them, they hurt us. They're not offended or anything by the idea of us hurting them since another species would have done it to them anyway.

"You're a 'faggot' if you don't like the same kind of music?"

Ow. My feelings, Bambi. My feelings.

Wat did I do?

Animal are not unless they can think for themselves. Instinct is always under intelligence. That's why ponies are the equivalent to humans. We think for ourselves!

>>12 What is your idea of "treating animals and humans equally"?
If anything I'd think you wouldn't want to see humans and animals as equals considering the problems you have with humans. Why would you want animals to be forced into the same circuit?

"Lets be honest, guys. If 500 hungry tigers were let loose in Manhattan, where there would be far more humans, how many humans do you think would die? A lot."
Actually, there'd be less loss of life on the human end than you'd think.

"Drop an adult in the middle of the jungle and they'll sure to die between a couple of hours to a couple of days. What from? Starvation. Poisoning. Unlike other animals, we don't have the instincts, the knowledge, or the will to gain the knowledge that's necessary to determine what is edible and what isn't."

You don't know that much about the people I hang out with. You should meet them. By the way, there ARE running organizations that allow you to do such things. I have trouble believing your other points because you seem to believe that all humans are failures when put beside nature. You should come with us sometime.

All living beings deserve respect, but the truth is that humans deserve more respect, and are higher creatures.

U ALL ARE WRONG !!! ANESERVE RESPECT IN RELATION TO THEIR OWN ECOSYSTEM !! YOU DONT HAVE TO INTEFERE INTO THEIR ENVIOREMENT!! DONT THROW HUMANS INTO A JUNGLE WHERE HE ISNT ADAPTED TO IDIOT !!

I think that for anyone who said that humans are better than animals because they are more intelligent, surely this would mean that you feel that mentally disabled people deserve the same amount of respect as animals? They are still human after all, just less intelligent. If you then say, 'Yeah, but they're still intelligent, just not in the same way, if it weren't for their mental condition they would be as intelligent as anyone else,' it all really depends on what you base intelligence on. It would be like saying that a fish is more intelligent than us because it can swim without having to breathe. We, as humans, are better designed for human life, and so we view others importance as compared to ourselves, not what they are adapted for.

>>18 Shut up, kid.

>>18
>Thinks he's God.
>Thinks people will listen when he rants in all caps.
>Thinks that humans never existed among nature.
>Thinks that humans can exist without animal life.
>Inferior-logic preservationist.

lulz.

>>19 This.

Everything deserves the same amount of respect if we don't respect other creatures then we will soon lose respect for humans as well there is nothing that is a "lower" creatures we all must co-exist if we can't our world will fail

Basically >>19 has won the topic. Anything else will lose in comparison.

>>16 "What is your idea of 'treating animals and humans equally'?"

My idea of treating humans and animals equally would depend on which side we shifted to. If you shifted to the human side, you would have to civilize animals in some fashion. If you went to the animal side, humans would have to limit technology, stop killing other animals for fur/leather/scales (unless they were taken from an animal whose meat was used for food), and gather food without domestication. Modern humans couldn't live that way. The idea of fighting for our food doesn't register until we're in a completely life-or-death situation with little hope of surviving.

"Why would you want animals to be forced into the same circuit?"

As I already said, I don't want animals to be forced into this kind of thing. It's not possible, IMO, anyway. Animals have no fucks to give to society, law, or custom. They wouldn't appreciate or care for (or need) the things that humans do. There's no need for them to be brought to our level since our self-stated purpose of existing is different than ours. We have society-related goals. Rather than aim to live, we aim to do good on a test or make a lot of money. Other animals couldn't live in this ridiculous system - first of all, because they don't use human language and second of all, because they don't care. If you kill them, they just see it as part of the food chain. Humans are the only creatures who are offended by the idea of killing other animals. In the eye of an animal, humans are just other creatures.

No, there would be a very high number of human deaths. Until the military or some special police force got involved, the only way to save yourself would be with shelter or a decoy. Most people don't carry around the weaponry necessary to kill a tiger/lion because it's not standard. If it was a busy day, most people who were in the nearby streets where they were released would be killed before they could find shelter. At the very least, 500 people would die, and that would only be if everyone could find shelter within the time that the big cats take to eat, and that would also only be if the only one human is taken per kill, which is unlikely. One pounce in a populated area would probably kill multiple people.


It's fine that your people are running organizations. I share that situation. There are some people who could live in the woods, but most of them couldn't. Take your standard teenager or adult who hasn't gone through some survival program and they would most likely die. Humans can't use their instincts that well; we're limited to using book-knowledge and limited experience for survival purposes. You may know that something that looks or smells like X is safe or not safe to eat, but you don't know that automatically. You have to be taught that because society and evolution have already preconditioned you to not need to know that naturally.

is different than theirs*

All in all, what sets humans apart from 'animals' is our morals. Few other animals are shown to have morals. They may have habits which resemble them, but not self-enforced methods of seeing the world/enforcing your beliefs/deciding what's 'good' and what's 'bad.'

Just another tidbit.

And allow me to repeat one more thing: Just because I feel that humans have to go back to nature at least partially to survive doesn't mean that I honestly want that at this stage in life. I know we need it, and I sort of want it, but not quite. Society is my life at this point, as it is all of yours. I want to get a great job and complete all of my goals. I'm not sure it's at all possible for humans to go back to nature with how much we rely and admire the ideals of society. However, I think the only way that this race will continue past the next few hundred years would be if we stopped all this bullshittery.

I don't believe in world piece, but I think we've got to stop with the bombs and cars and trains and factories if we want Earth and our own society to continue on.

That is all off-topic, though. All-in-all, as much as I personally believe that humans are just another a species of animals that have huge egos, I don't think it's resonable, possible, or logical for humans and animals to be treated the same way at this point in time.

world peace*

Oh god. I can't type today. I'm just going to stop posting here. Sorry for the craptons of post :l

>>24 You're still clinging to that tiger example huh?
Okay, let me show you the points I have in why it wouldn't happen.
A. You released tigers in MANHATTAN. The environment has almost been entirely reconstructed for human purposes. Tigers wouldn't be able to properly understand this environment and, just as most animals, would be severely intimidated by it.
B. You mentioned finding some shelter or decoy. Again, it's Manhattan, you are never more than a few yards away from such a thing at any given moment. Even if buildings were closed off to people, vehicles would provide more than enough security. Would a tiger be capable of breaking into a vehicle? Yes, but not without sustaining a sufficient injury.
C. People, whether it's apparent in one individual to the next, have a disaster affinity. In other words, a certain degree of human thought in EVERYONE goes into what actions they will take when something goes horribly, horribly wrong. We all do it for different reasons. Whether it's preparing for a zombie apocalypse, preparing for the real one when the next president takes office, expecting the corporate regime to tighten the noose around the common individual, total societal collapse, war, or just something totally random, everyone makes a plan. Need proof? We're still postulating the situation of a tiger-based Armageddon on a major metropolitan area, and I guarantee you that in at least some small way, you've considered your part in it. Sure, many of us don't take those things seriously, but we as a species are vigilant for disaster, and when faced by impossibility we exude qualities and abilities that are not only observable during other times, they're downright impossible to maintain.
D. Not going Peta up in this place, but tigers DO feel pain, and people in Manhattan certainly DO have guns. Americans love guns. You don't have to kill a tiger to get it to back down. Even a shot from a dinky little rimfire would be enough to distract one, giving enough time for a bold individual to retaliate or anyone else time to escape.
E. You released "500 hungry tigers"...this one still bothers me. Unlike lions, tigers are solitary hunters. Releasing that many in a single area only helps to actually decrease their efficiency. They stalk prey, and when stealth is not an available option their technique becomes sloppy. Confused by their environment and their normal approach failing, humans get even more time to prepare and/or defend themselves.
F. More tiger issues! You assume just because the tiger is hungry, that it's going to attempt to mercilessly bound out after humans. Humans are not tiger prey. They may have been, in the Cretaceous era or somesuch blot in history when man was still part of a natural food chain, but now tigers know (just as most species of wildlife do) what humans are capable of. They either fear us or learn to rely on us (depending on where the tiger came from), and even the insubordination powers of hunger will NOT allow for an all-out attack on the denizens of New York. Tigers are opportunists, not above foregoing food for life and safety. Some humans will die, yes, but not as many due to the tiger's actual nature and the human tendency to believe that, as you seem to share, tigers are merciless manslaughterers.
This example not only makes me wonder about your views on humanity, but makes me think you don't know shit about tigers either.

As for your other example, I wanted to overlook this, but to hell with it. Do you actually know how long it takes for a human to die of starvation? Weeks. Especially if you're one of those so called "lazy fat Americans" that have a few extra days worth of sustenance built up in your body. Yeah, that stuff actually has a purpose. A person may be unable to survive in that environment, but starvation and inedibility won't be the reason.


Anyway, enough about tigers and jungles eh? Let's just meander our way back on topic now.

>>28
It's still on topic. Kind of.

It is true, though, most Animals couldn't survive on their own in our Society. Mostly because our society is not natural. Not natural by any means of the word, but we, on the other hand can easily survive in nature as well as our own society. We may have troubles, as does any species, but the fact remains humans are the most balanced of species in the entire world. They are the most adaptable of any kind of life.

Let's see a chimp build a Submarine just so they can travel under water, where most animals, minus the marine kind, can't venture forth into?

We are the only species that can travel into space. We are the only species that can harness the power of electricity, and fire. We are the only species that can create machines that can go even faster than the fastest animals.

Basically anything an animal can do, we can learn to do with technology, or through a study.

Now we probably should respect animals due to what they are, (the first species to populate this planet.) Also, if one species dies off,we have a more likely chance of getting fucked in the outcome.

But in the end we will always put ourselves first, because we are the most balanced, powerful, self centered, self entitled species in the entire world.

Now to the cons. Humans don't just eat because they have to. They eat for sport, or they eat because they are addicted. They also eat to spite other people.

They take land because they want to expand. They kill because of ideals, beliefs. Animals are more peaceful, while we are more balanced.

^ Taste good.

>>19

Your example of a fish breathing out of water is horrible. Intelligence is based on what you can learn. IQ is a test of not how much knowledge you have, but how accustom you are to taking in new information. It has nothing to do with physical compatibility. A human can't learn to breathe underwater. A fish can't learn to breathe out of water. Both can learn to swim.

Otherwise, yes, ID people are very much in fact pointless to keep alive other than the bonds of family that we constructed ourselves. Hence why family keeps them alive. You don't see affluent benefactors going around giving hospitals millions, and millions of dollars to keep ID humans alive. If you are ID, and never have a hope of any sort of social, or evident contribution, then what's the point of you staying alive? Personally, I have a living will. If I am unable to communicate in any way (no eye movement, no sign of me being present) and still alive they are to pull the plug. Like hell I want to live in a bed for twenty years waiting to die, being a burden on others.



Over all we are superior due to our intelligence, but as explained intelligence is not how much we know, but how well we acclimate to new information, that is a literal definition of intelligence. Our ability to recognize patterns is completely profound, and while many animals can do it, none do it as well as we have. Now to say we are the most superior, and to say we are superior to most is two different things. By predatorial standards, we are the most superior. There are few animals, and plants we can't eat, and fewer that we aren't known to avoid.

>>32 >while many animals can do it, none do it as well as we have

Good thing we took that survey way back when and figured this out.
Unfortunately, this is a pretty bold, unprovable statement.

I don't think intelligence means much in the wild without tools that someone smarter than you built. As a species, you could argue that we are pretty much on top, but the difference with us is that our species as a whole can benefit from its best, unlike many other species. Dolphins do not send all their intelligence and all they have done with it to every dolphin alive and preserve their knowledge, that takes a lot more time. Humans, on the other hand, can make use of guns, cars, and many other things they have no working concept of. Take three random humans and I don't think you can declare them superior to three of another species in terms of survival. It varies a lot for humans, I think a lot more than other animals.

^

in my personal opinion i think if its alive it wants to live, it feels just like us, it is equal.. in short i just think we should take animals life into account.

My personal belief is that humans are far lesser creatures than the animals we call "beasts."