The Superior Human?
8.22
Ratings: 8.22/10 from 88 users.
Documentary which systematically challenges the common human belief that humans are superior to other life forms. The Superior Human reveals the absurdity of this belief while exploding human bias.
The world is an amazing place. It is filled with billions of life forms of various sizes and shapes. According to some, the most amazing life forms on the planet must be humans.
They believe humans have revealed their astounding superiority over all other life forms with their many key traits and special abilities.
In this film, we will journey through a list of highly referenced points, sourced from a variety of individuals and resources, that support the supposed inherent superiority of humans.
I believe a diffetence between humans and animals ultimately comes down to the ability for abstraction, or thinking outside of logic or instinct for pleasure, inspiration, or social reward, as in the telling of a joke.
The human superiority complex is exclusively a male behavior even in written religious books states that women are inferior to men and political rotten green old men once said that women are inferior animals, lower than dogs.The human superiority is not only a negative mentality exclusive to other living organisms it's inclusive to our own from gender to racial form . Human arrogance and superiority is base on fear and phobia of the unknown -of what it can't be controlled, comprehend and dominate and Nature can't be dominated.
The reasons human beings are superior living things include its huge population; communicable languages and written records; intelligence in inventing; and progressed from primitive to civilization. Animals possess, perhaps a lower level of, these elements too. Except for not able to organize to the form and size of living like human beings, animal have own rights of way (unless they turn wild to attack human) to live harmonically alongside with human. I think this may be the message that the documentary is delivering. This is a great film but somehow lacks a bit of explicit objective.
Never seen so many straw men in one place before!
Incredible how so many people are closed minded and miss the point of this great documentary. It's as simple as this - we really aren't all that. It's our own perception. Get it out of the mind that there's a goal for humans, a path or some need for us on the earth. That's the false perception. Strip away the notion that we're responsible for anything besides sensible morals and sadly reparation of the things we've already managed to f--k up on the planet.
Exist and enjoy that, procreate (enjoy that), don't hurt or destroy things needlessly and clean up after yourselves before you die. It's quite straightforward and rational.
Since when are the words dominion and superiority synonyms? We indeed do have dominion over the birds of the sky, the fish of the sea as well as the animals on land. We are responsible for the life of this planet and are called to nurture and even enhance the life on Earth. We hold incredible capacities to destroy life as well I need not remind you. Our role on earth is different from other species and reflects dominion not superiority as we are dependent entirely on nature. I respect your argument, but I ask that you please refrain from assaults on biblical scripture, they hold no substance.
We poison our air and water to weed out the weak! We set off fission bombs in our only biosphere! We nailed our God to a stick! Don't fu*k with the human race!
Humans are Superior!
We were never meant to be the ruler of the world as we lack the basic tools such as tolerance, coexistence, understanding, patience. We are good at creating problems but when it comes to solve them we fail miserably. We have brought ourselves along with the only home for all living form to a danger turn and we do not even know how to reverse the mistake we made instead we are busy messing the world even further. I came to learn about the subject when i was exposed to a great book called 'Ishmael' written by Daniel Quinn. It opened my eyes and gave me a taste of our own disgusted existence filled with greed and will of possessions. Our earth would be better off without the worst creature of it. Humans.
Astute response. What I find so painful is the igno RANT of
the individuals who can not understand the premise of this documentary. Why do so many fail to understand? Humans must live in harmony with nature or we will self-destruct as a species.
I'm pretty lucky than! The people I'm surrounded by do nothing but solve problems. Solve more problems than create...
The doc explains Descartes/Cartesian philosophy as it pertains to modern
human supremacist consciousness. The doc provided excellent examples
of specific, biological behaviors and abilities of a variety of animals which have superior function to humans. I found parts of the doc to be very funny. The narrator's voice is soothing and gentle. The doc is a courageous plea for humans to please wake up.
This documentary is r*tarded. I wonder what made the creators of it absolutely despise humans so much; they just keep making a bunch of irrelevant, biased points. Humans are obviously the most intelligent and creative animals. We have the most complex structures on the planet. You can't compare the size of a termite mound to that of a skyscraper because when you're dealing with things as small as grains of sand things get a lot easier.
This documentary went full r*tard and was just made to attract hippie, self hating nimrods.
Yeah! The humans are the best living beings on the planet! We win! And what is the trophy?
Destruction of the system of nature...
Were aren't above the system of nature. We are part of nature.
And the system of nature isn't a hierarchical one but a circular one; that means that all living beings depend on each other...
And what this documentary is about isn't hate of humans but ignorance of the human race...
Philosophically speaking, the opposite of love isn't hate but ignorance...
Chimps have short term memories that far, far exceed human capabilities (it's quite astonishing how good it is in them) and dogs can smell cancer and explosive residues...Some whales have global sonar, and so on.
I find it a little silly to compare human animal vs animals traits as if there were some kind of competition. There is none, we win hands down where it counts; of being at the top of the food chain. Of advanced weaponry and understanding of the universe. Animals, like nature, continually do amazing things. There's a whole universe in a single cell really.
It is self realization and the knowledge of our own death.
Thanks for this amazing Documentary!
I found this funny and sane.Education should begin here ,not at the opposite end.There would be no wars or famine....if we were as inteligent as animals....human stupidity has no borders or limits.....there humans are the best....and this is the only argument i can find to have superiority above animals.Sad but true...think,before you speak,or howl to the moon....peace and love
Animals are above humans...they dont need stupid god to guide them in to the sin.They dont kill for money and they are far more developed as humans are.Animals also dont need comercials to told them what is good and what they need...so who is stupid and beter?Humans not for sure...if we ever were more inteligent or self aware ,that times are long gone.Most of humans are now empty,stupid shels,with materialistic vision and no friends.
Now,who are you?
Well said ! Hopefully, as our civilization falls apart with Covid-19 and Climate Change, we will be increasingly forced to see the truth that everyone and everything on earth is connected. Once this becomes crystal clear, we'll see that it's up to us to make our world better. Or mass extinction will occur.
The main problem with this doc is that it's boring...
I love life. I love animals. I wish no harm on ANYTHING.... That being said.... STUPID FRICKIN ANIMAL LOVERS!! Good lord you people drive me insane. Yeah they're cute. And I wanna project myself on my dog... I wanna anthropomorphize the cute lil monkey, that kitty cat, the snail on the under leaf of a branch too. I understand our intrinsic interconnectedness. But I also understand that I am a member of the only species currently capable of understanding that. Are we above the animals? Sure! Are we separate? Not a chance. Not yet. Does my life hold more value than your cats? Or a lab rats? YES!! IT DOES!! Why?? Because I am capable of having the thought "hmmm. I think I'd rather your cats life be on the chopping block than mine.". Because I am capable of thought... I would never say that animals don't have feelings. That's just as ludicrous. One look into the face of just about any mammal will tell you they experience lower level emotion. But they do not have conscious thought as we understand it to exist. A prerequisite for which is language. I don't necessarily agree with this, however, it's our current understanding of conscious thought.... Idk. Love animals. Love the world. I'm this close to turning into a vagitarian just because of the way the world works.
"STUPID FRICKIN ANIMAL LOVERS!!" I laughed reading that one because that's exactly what I was thinking!
And I wouldn't think about going vegetarian, our digestive system resembles that of carnivorous species, not herbivorous ones. so you'd be going against the way nature made us.
You got that backwards. Our digestive system resemble more herbivores than carnivores.
Conscious thought is different than consciousness. I'm a meditator, and when I saw the documentary here called H.O.P.E. What You Eat Matters, it was sickening enough that I decided to stop eating meat.
If you got to explain to someone that animals have feeling, your dealing with someone who is so oblivious to what is going on around them they may never get it no matter how rational a conversation you might atempt to have with them to explain why they do...
This pathetic film really insults ones intelligence. Information is manipulated and conclusions are based on false logic.
And what religion do you ascribe to? Just wondering since only a completely brainwashed individual would make such a statement.
One other note... that budget for the Military?? That's thanks to the US who has all the guns.
I don't think of as "superiority", but humans are definitely different from many other animals. Many animals sing, I've never seen one create a symphony. Animals may paint, they don't create the Sistine Chapel. It is foolish to think ourselves above animals, we are however very different in many ways and that's cool.
Yes, we are very different in that while we create in ways many other species do not, we also destroy on a scale that no other species ever has or ever will come close to. We destroy far more than we create and many of our creations are beneficial ONLY to human beings and detrimental to all other life. Not to mention that many of our creations are extremely detrimental to human life as well. We are more akin to a virus than a mammal, we multiply, consume and spread, leaving destruction and desolation in our wake. We are the only species on the planet that does not live in balance with our surroundings, that exploits all forms of life and resources till there is nothing left. Oh yes, we are different, but not in a good way.
Hi Sherridan. I felt like this for the longest time. It got to the point where I asked myself a fatal question. Have humans contributed anything positive to the world? It seems whenever we try to fix something it gets worse. Whenever we try to change something is has an overall negative affect. The only thing I could think of where we have left a noticeable improvement was in extending our lives with medicine, and creating children - again not necessarily a good thing for the planet. Nothing selfless of our species, quite depressing. The answer appeared to be no.
I decided not to interfere with things if possible. I changed from being a participator to being an observer; listening and learning till I understood things well enough to participate better. That helped a lot.
If I take something from the world, I try to give it twice back. If I make a mark, I try to make that mark an improvement. It's good for the soul, but more important is to realise we are NOT destined to be this way and we can change our behaviour by simply making the informed choices to do so, as they confront us.
We don't have to be a virus, and shame on us if we can identify ourselves as such and still do nothing about it.
Clearly you have realised this, so for you there is no going back, cause if you do, you'll begin to despise who we are and forget what astoundingly creative, beautiful creatures are truly capable of. Be the change you wish to see in the world. (Gandhi) ;-)
Can you name any animal that isn't unique? Being unique, I'm afraid, isn't anything special (ironically!)
The Sistine Chapel may be wonderful to us, but you have to be human to appreciate it ... not one dog on this earth cares ... not even more intelligent species do ... this means it has only subjective value, and no objective value. It doesn't even have universal value among humans. Were there a social breakdown like what happened during Rome's fall, and warlords in the area were fighting, they would not hesitate to shell it to rubble if they could gain the upper hand by doing so. Look at what happened to the antiquities in Iraq, the highest arts of the world's first civilization. Collateral damage in a conflict students will find a weary subject in a century or two.
Perhaps more importantly, its not an attribute of our species. Its an attribute of Michelangelo. Most of our millions and billions do no such things. They eat, they sleep, they have sex and they socialize; and do little or nothing that is not somehow related to these things. And then they die, leaving nothing behind that lasts more than a couple of generations. No different, in the long run, than a dust mite.
What a stupid documentary, I did find it somewhat entertaining and it gave me a good laugh here and there, but it all got abit to much halfway through.
I forget what you call it when you pose a question and then debunk it, but that the original question formed for the purpose of debunking. Pretty much all the "reasons" listed for why humans are suppose to be superior is bunk and just made up by the author or taken from people with no real scientific or modern understanding of humans and/or the world.
I would be extremely suprised any scientist or knowledgable person who thinks humans are superior to other life forms would really put forth the same reasons as this person.
I just remembered its called a straw man arguement, this is how wiki describes it.
"A straw man, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Alot of the arguements being made are that if humans are so superior, why do other life forms do the same thing or similiar things to them? If humans were superior that doesnt mean that all other life forms are simplistic and non-complex and are miles away from humans in all ways.
sure alot of other animals can do the same things as humans, as good or even BETTER then humans, but which ones can do ALL of those things.
I could go on but my post is already long enough.
...and what I can say is - bravo and carry on.
"...it all got abit [sic] to [sic] much halfway through."
"sure alot [sic] of other animals can do the same things as humans, as good or even BETTER then [sic] humans, but which ones can do ALL of those things.[sic]"
You should have probably watched to the end then, because it goes over that... It's pretty much the main point. Kinda like watching Star Wars halfway then saying it would have been cooler if Darth Vader turned out to be Luke's father...
52:44 - "superior", "better" etc. are opinions at fundamental level
59:53 - need to stop defining "superior" etc. as being human like. Compare something not so subjective, like our survivability to others, and we are actually not so successful.
At the end of the day, all the supposed traits that make something more or less valuable, inferior or superior, are all just opinions, so the whole argument is nonsense. It's kind of like a little girl saying girls are superior to boys because girls listen to Justin Bieber, have pretty hair, wear pink, and like to talk a lot, then a little boy argues back by saying boys are superior because they like rock and roll, wear pants, are stronger, and take karate classes. They can't understand that their personal interests that help them be successful are not the end all be all pillars of "success" for everyone else. Both survive in their niche environment and lifestyle by doing what they do.
Humans are extremely resourceful and adaptive. E.g. a tree cannot travel the world, build skyscrapers, etc. But, as a consequence, we also have short lifespans (individually and as a species) and we require a huge amount of energy to survive (food and nat. resources). Trees just sit pretty for hundreds of years, require little energy (no 9-5 job), leave a small footprint, they have been around longer than us, and they are predicted to outsurvive us. So who's superior at surviving? Well, maybe we have short fun lives and they have long slow ones.
Race, Gender or Specie's there should be no discrimination.
That has Doc was deep.
Interesting look at 'Human Supremacy'; the sarcasm is simplistic but also good in places. I would argue that hunter/gatherers of which there are still some have great respect for all nature, knowing first hand how dependent we are. It is dis-connect from the woods, waters, wild creatures great and small, to start, that keeps humans trapped in the well marketed propaganda of the Empire Builders. 'We' are the ones who need to be rescued and freed to re-connect with all our relations.
It doesnt seem to me the animals have morals...I agree we all equally feel the same pain as animals that seems obvious...however that isnt shared by anmials they either dont seem to agree or just arent aware of it...for example a lion will attack the troat of its prey wat seemms to be a quick execution however wild dogs will just eat the stomach of its prey until it eventually bleeds to death while being ripped apart
Superiority is just plain stupidity, arrogance. Are you going to stop going along with the idiocy of society, their way of producing food, of building homes, etc. We've got to look at ourselves as an integral part of this planet and its systems of co-existence.
If you don't understand people from another country, how do you know they communicate and not just wonder around flailing their arms in the air spurting some sort of meaningless gibberish? Empirical data from hundreds of experiments about "other" animals' ability to make decisions based on their verbal/non-verbal "communication" is proof enough for them to have a perspective.
"Species by definition are different one from another.." Whose definition and define different? Now that's an opinion.
About pro's and con's, a bird's ability to navigate w/o a compass, and our inability to do so is not an opinion, it's a fact. Just one of many.
About the "self-sacrifice", would you sacrifice yourself for survival of another human? Does it mean you are superior to him/her? You may think of YOUR superiority all you want, that's the point: such thinking leads to separating yourself from the eco-system/pack/nature/group/society and eventually leads to conflict/competition for limited resources.
The moment you emphasize YOUR difference/superiority that's the moment you separate yourself from the whole. instead of embracing it. Propaganda, LOL, you are so afraid to see other point of view that everything different from your opinion is Propaganda... Maybe, maybe not.
Please DO innovate and use your imagination and creativity to solve one of these problems: war (since the times when one human took a stick and hit another human on the head), corruption (even in the most technologically and politically "advanced" nations), crime (even among the most righteous societies), pollution, etc.
I couldn't have sad it better myself.
I thought - finally a documentary in the top commented area not about religion. Then I clicked play and found out this is also anti-religion! I guess that's just the hot topic nowadays.
It's important to know that Christianity is actually good to other species of life. Although plants, animals and bacterias don't have souls, they are God's creatures. Maybe an atheist would not believe they are special because God made them and treat them badly.
Sadly, it's codified in the christian bible that god gave humans 'dominion' over the earth and all it's (nonhuman) inhabitants, justifying the most appalling (and short-sighted) abuse.
I applaud your empathy, but don't conflate it with religion.
It's not in the Christian bible exclusively, Old Testament is in essence a Jewish Torah, Q'uran has similar verses of human 'dominion'...
Point is: the whole 'trio' of Abrahamic religions presents such worldview. Sad, sad thing.
P.s. Most organized religions eventually instill an idea of superiority inside a follower's mind (towards anything and anybody), hence discrimination and war.
Poor Betty just can't open her eyes to see :(((
This is a strange doc. It talks about humans being superior. It seems the documentary sees 'superior'as performing a task best (seeing, hearing, building etc). First, it mentions a very wide range of living forms which posses one or two remarkable (remarkable to us) attributes and compares all those to what a human can do, and despite that, humans may still come on top in every single one of them just not without some tools ;). All those animals/life forms have those great qualities compared to us because they are physically far superior. Like ants, they build relatively larger structures because they are relatively far far stronger and resistant (they can fall from the top and just get up) .. you can see cases like that all over the video.
can a bear heal another bear from a seemingly fatal injury ?? not to mention a broken leg equals dead in most mammals in the wild ....can they increase their natural life expectancy through vaccines and medicine, what about the fact that we dont have predators anymore (2 out of every 3 bears die in the first 3 months of life). The thing is that humans ENHANCE many abilities to levels that no other life form could, in the future we may even have them 'naturally' through DNA manipulation, humans strive to manipulate and control its surroundings, in many more years even time will be manipulated ... and yes.. most likely a robot and a mouse will be sent in the first time travel just to check out if 'micky' survives. This intelligence comes with a price, like weak and fragile bodies, total dependency in the first 4 years of life etc ..... one problem... HUMANS seem to be the only species that consistently takes care of the r*tarded and let them reproduce... for example (jersey shore ) XD
I think you missed the major point of the movie and you are only discussing the first part of the film. We are interconnected, it's not dominators VS dominated. That's Cartesian thinking. Do we control chili peppers by farming and eating them, or do they control us by seducing us with their flavor and causing us to plant them all over the world and hugely increase their population and survival rate.
Predators: We have many, but as the movie points out, we classify predators carefully so we appear at the top. Parasites, bacteria, viruses, each other (see "war").
Yes, (human like) intelligence does come at a price and it is a fundamental law that increased complexity equals increased fragility.
BTW, animals do use medicine. Monkeys cure poisoning with a carbon compound similar to what humans often use. They use certain leaves as bug repellant by rubbing them on each others' bodies. Lions eat certain grasses to treat injuries. Same with dogs. Plant species can clone themselves in order to live thousands of years - what we are still trying to do.
Every life form has certain abilities that help it survive. At the end of the day, we are not the best at survival. However much you value a digital camera, or a human medicine, or whatever, they are all irrelevant to other species, many of which have been around much longer and have longer life spans.
Your Jersey Shore comment: I can't really argue
So that's how you sharpen a crap knife... Saliva. Although the story is obviously not true, I think it would be a major time and health saver for the Inuit to just run away!
I saw this quote and thought it was interesting.
Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity, he said: "Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is? so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived."
I think most people confuse traits useful to us with traits useful to others. For instance, intelligence, fire making, space technology, etc. all seem overall good for humans, but they are useless for increasing the survival of many other organisms.
The simple fern has easily survived since the dinosaurs and will almost certainly out survive us. Giving a fern a big brain would be a useless addition and only cause it to need more food, which it would not be able to acquire. Ferns are successful by being a conservative species. We, on the other hand, live like firecrackers.
Humans can create new animals. Humans can control fire. Human can explore space. The list goes on and on. I am all for a better recognition of the value of all forms of life, but to say that humans are not superior is to be in denial. Perhaps we are not as superior as we think, but yeah, we are.
Cut you off from your tools, technology and knowledge that's been handed to you by your predecessors then see how superior you feel. Sure you could try to build new tools but have you ever tried? Have you ever actually tried to build a fire out of natural materials? If all the clothing in the world vanished could you yourself make new ones and have you ever tried? You take credit for your species going to space but do you yourself have the knowledge required to build a spacecraft? The capacity for superior intelligence, that's all we've got going for us that is "superior" to everything else. So if another animal has a sense or a strength that is superior to yours, it counts for nothing? Are you sure superior intelligence simply trumps any other characteristic? You put a city kid on a deserted island he'd likely starve to death; you put a dog on the same island and it'd have no trouble surviving.
"Sure you could try to build new tools but have you ever tried?"
I once heard a story about an Inuit tribesman, who, rather than be taken by civilization: crapped in his hand; formed the dung into a knife; sharpened it with his saliva, as it froze; used the knife to kill a dog; fashioned the dog's body into a sled; used it's intestines as reins to tie his remaining dogs; and rode off into the tundra, never to be seen again. If you ask me, that was an intelligent human!
Define “superiority”. Our super intelligence has polluted the world’s water supply with deadly toxins, bacteria and parasites so it must be treated before it is consumed. Our superior intelligence has contaminated the air supply so pulmonary diseases like asthma and C.O.P.D. are epidemic in industrialized countries. We breed indiscriminately with disregard for disease so genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia have jumped across racial barriers; and mental infirmities like bi-polar disorder and depression are increasingly more prevalent with each generation. Our superior intelligence has created the technology for fast-food corporations to feed the masses with high sodium, high fat edibles that is creating a whole generation of morbidly obese people. Our superior intelligence is decimating the world’s rainforests and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases to potentially devastating levels that is melting the world’s icecaps and glaciers. Because of this, massive flooding is causing $billions in damage each year to low lying populated areas. We have created the technology to over harvest our oceans and farm fish in ponds with contaminant levels 20 to 30 times higher than is seen in our oceans.
The rest of the inhabitants of this planet that we consider ‘intelligently challenged’ in comparison to our abilities do not partake in these deviant behaviors. Squirrels gather nuts and bury them in various spots so the ones they do not consume during the winter grow into new trees and create more food for succeeding generations. Honeybees pollinate their food supply in their efforts to gather sustenance, again creating food for future generations. Beaver create dams that build whole new ecosystems that benefit a myriad of species that live in relative harmony with each other; something that our superior intelligence does not allow us to do. Deer, birds, elk and all the other natural inhabitants of this planet go through a pre-mating ritual to determine which potential mate is the most fit, eliminating genetic and physical deficiencies…man’s superior intelligence has created his own pre-mating rituals that include drinking to intoxication and taking on all who wish to endeavor.
Personally, I do not see our intelligence as being superior…if it is we haven’t learned how to use it yet.
"Our superior intelligence has created the technology for fast-food corporations to feed the masses with high sodium, high fat edibles that is creating a whole generation of morbidly obese people."
HEY... I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!!
"We breed indiscriminately with disregard for disease so genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia have jumped across racial barriers"
So you think that SCA should have been 'contained' within African people?!!
P.s. "Breeding", as you called it, across racial barriers is good for increasing our gene pool.
Robyn, Humans are mammals, a species of animal.
Breeding is another word for reproduction. We must stop sentimentalizing breeding and thus feeding into archaic cultural scripting. The cultural script that tells a female that she must breed in order to have power is bringing our human population dangerously close to extinction.
The truth hurts.
Are you superior to other humans? Or maybe some other humans superior to you?
BTW, what's your IQ? If you don't qualify to be a member of MENSA, maybe you should be sterilized in order to 'improve' human genetic traits?!
P.s. about creating new animals, sooner or later our greed and ambition will be our demise. Sad, but true.
P.s.s. I hope you understand I was being sarcastic in my reply to you.
The Focus of This film is animal rights, one thing that 99,9% of humans neglect and ignore (unless we are talking about cats and dogs). The first part of the movie is a bit boring and the narrator s voice is not good. But the main message is: all animals desire to live and all animals avoid pain. Humans are superior in some things but inferior in others. We cant consider ourselves superior just because of inteligence. If so, dogs would consider themselves superior because of their smell. Elephants would consider themselves superior because of their size, etc.
We kill each other with atomic bombs. We let childs die in the world because of maltrunition every minute. At The same time we have meat in our plates, meat from animals that were fed with grains that otherwise could have fed those malnourished children. That meat comes from animals who had a life of sacrifice and extreme pain in factory farms and slaughterhouses that we created. Do we need to eat meat? No! Should we respect other life forms? Yes! Do we? No! I always wonder why dogs have the right to be protected and can not be beaten or murdered but cows, pigs, chicken can be killed thousands every minute just because "we" like to eat them. This is imoral and is a proof that we are not that intelligent.
The reason because why i dont eat meat is the same as the one because why im against bullfighting. I dont think animal suffering justifies my amusement or my pleasure at dinner time.
This is a moot argument. There is no superior form of life, because all life is the same. We all came from the same thing that all other matter in the universe came from. Saying we are superior to another form of life is like saying water is more important then breathing. None of us would exist if there were no bacteria, or bees, or trees, or plankton, or spiders, or ants. We are part of an ecosystem that depends on all other parts of the ecosystem for survival, and without even a fraction of that part, most of life will die. Including us. But the bacteria wouldnt. And i bet you the ants wouldnt either. So the real debate should be what is the most important part of the ecosystem that helps support the rest of the ecosystem. And i think we can all agree that homosapiens would be dead last.
Thank you Warren Gates for still posting, I was getting tierd to repeat my argument indefinitely.Glad at least somme people understan what the documentary saied and what I am arguing aboat.
Id like to see a bear stop an asteroid from hitting earth.
Humans have certainly never stopped one either, or saved the planet from any other catastrophe. They are the source of a few however. TLDR: Armageddon was fiction bro.
I was going to say the same thing exactly. The Armageddon movie was not a documentary. We have never stopped a large asteroid from hitting Earth. Some people get hyped up on sci-fi shows and movies and think we can stop killer asteroids, and if not, just travel off of the Earth and survive in space somehow.
Nature is pretty strong. A strong hurricane exerts the power of a 10 megaton nuclear bomb every 20 seconds. The power of just one earthquake can outdo the world's nuclear weapons several times. Of course, humans are quite astounding, but making up fantasies about how we are omnipotent will just end up getting us killed.
and sorry about the extremist part... my bad...
And by the way... we didn't even tapped the determinism part... cuz hate to tell you... there is no such thing has determinism any more... the idea is out dated has well ... I'll save the "measurement problem" to another session... :)
but I'm happy to dive on that any time
sorry for the burst out... I mean well ;)
cheers
The opposable thumb part and the walking on 2 legs, part was presented because these are the reason we developed large brains and so I thing they are a good referance.The high population is presented because it is proff for the species evolutionary succes and again I think it's a good referance.The part with the living in houses I thin it's aboat "conquering nature" and modeling it by our plans and so no beeing dependent on the old patters of behaiviour like the large part of the animal kingdom.It could of debated allot more of course but I thing the points that were debate were far from simplistic.I know I have grammar mistakes and i can live with that. The written word could be a good referance but the soul purpose of the doc. was to demonstrate that all values are objective and so they should be treated.
PS: English is my 3-rd language Io parlo anche l'Italiano
I created an account just to comment on this documentary. This is one of the stupidest things I have ever watched in my entire life. If you enjoy intellectual stimulation and have an intelligence level that is above that of a 6 year old, this doc is not for you. It puts forth arguments that no one has ever made, and then disproves them. It also focuses only on the negative aspects of human civilization. What about antibiotics, complex political/economic systems, and instant global access to limitless information? I'm not saying that humans are superior to other creatures, but we do posses both cognitive and logistical abilities that are seen no where else in nature. That does not mean that we are more highly evolved, just that we took a different evolutionary path. That's it. I just saved you 1 hour and 13 minutes that you would never get back...
True, but most people I have met will never be able to understand this. We have our skills just like any creature and ours look pretty unique.
I think most take this as a ticket to salvation though, and don't realize we are not immortal and that all a feeling of "superiority" gives us is an abuse of the environment we thrive on. Remember that most of the world's population believes they have an immortal soul which will live forever in happiness, so this whole Earth thing doesn't matter anyway, and it was created for our "dominion" so we actually should abuse it.
Anthropocentrism is rampant and it is harming human society more than it is helping. That's undeniable for me.
I didn't contradict miself.. I changed my opinion,I no longer stand for the first one, I mentioned I am human and the ilusion of contro seems real even to me so sometimes I forget it's not... I saied that non of oure actions are in our control, not somme , none.But because I have many influances it appears I am making decizions, ok but the influences are not controled by me so it's an ilusion of control
From Ricardo Rodrigues to Casapu Radu.
It's hard work debating with you when You don't read my posts properly... I'm not talking of control... much less controlling environmental influences. I agree with you on that... I'm talking about self-awareness, and choice, we act on past experience, perceptual organization, and emotional reasoning, Not just from instinct, genetic makeup or environmental causality. At the level we do this, we are on a totally difent level than any other specie... as far as we can tell-of course it's always relative and I don't what so seem Dogmatic, but I think it' a fair assumption non the less.
This does not make us superior... But it gives us tools other species will never have access in their present form... And potentially gives us "unlimited perks"...not necessarily better for survival though.
But there is another thing worth saying, Nature never favored intelligence... As far as we can tell it's not a common pattern in nature, and that speaks for itself. I mean we're the only "homo" species around, all others went extinct... We might be the shining new car on the block... But with terrible brakes... And we can smash right against the wall on the first curve... Cuz we got to remember we're around for 200000 years give or take a few thousand... we're still baby's.... There's no telling where we might end up.
Choice is an illusion.
-How come some identical twins separated at birth end up wearing the same hair style, facial hair, shirt, pants, and are interested in the same things? If you say it's because genetically similar people think similarly, then that is saying thoughts are determined genetically and not because of choice or free will :)
-How could scientists in Japan look at readings from a person's brain and know what they were going to "choose" several seconds before the person knew? :o
-Why do men and women like different movies (action, romance)? Maybe one would say it's due to their different gender/DNA which causes hormone differences and ultimately influences thought. Again, determined. ;)
To believe in choice, you have to believe that humans have a choice making organ/soul that is completely disconnected from all other matter (this rules out environmental determinism, you wouldn't want matter affecting your thinking organ/soul and influencing thought) and you would also have to make sure the organ/soul is not made of matter or energy, since they move in determined manners. Basically, it's impossible and it's why most of Descarte's followers left him. Something disconnected from the environment (the only way to avoid determinism) cannot influence the environment... because it's disconnected.
The movie talked about how Darwin said that if physical traits are genetically continuous and evolved, then so too are thoughts and feelings. The views were backed up by Bernard Rollin.
*So, you argue academically invalid, 400 year old, religious, Cartesian Dualism.
*Charles Darwin and a triple professor who dedicated his life to this topic argue against it.
Good luck!
No dude... omg!
Where on earth am I saying anything remotely similar to that...!
Why do you people have the need to argue with everything and find all kinds of preposterous arguments... in this case you're even correct in everything you say... but it does not apply to what I'm saying...
Since when did I implied anything about a freaking soulorgan of choice... of course behaviour is influenced by envierment... better... it results by the interaction with it...
Cartesian Dualism??? seriously...
just read the posts without stones in your hands...
but for the sake of the argument let's play your game.
"...How come some identical twins separated at birth end up wearing the same hair style, facial hair, shirt, pants, and are interested in the same things?..."
Raise one of them in china... and another in Camboja, then bring them together after 20 years... and you'll see just how similar they are...!!
Of course genetics influences and determines behaviour... I'm not saying otherwise... It's the combination of genes interacting in a certain environment that produces what you call yourself... but not just that... it's your own feedback processes and the constant review of past experience that defines how we will behave in the future... then you have to consider self awareness... cuz we "know that we know"... and you can analyse, identify, imagine, create, recreate, reflect etc. ... of course all this is based on a determine baseline of genetic structure that reacts to the environment.
Thought and feelings arise from body states... even mind states arise from body states... I was referring to the importance of self awareness... and how it makes us special... never said nothing about mind vs body... or the disconnection of the mind... cuz mind comes from body. I'm have a masters on sensory integration... so I know a little of how the brain works...
read António Damasio specificity the "Descartes error" ... he is just the leading neuroscientist in the world... at least for some people...
Don't be extremist... it's ugly!
You, 1 post ago (my emphasis):
"I'm talking about self-awareness, and choice, we act on past experience, perceptual organization, and emotional reasoning, Not just from instinct, genetic makeup or environmental causality."
Your recent post (my emphasis):
[our behavior is] "the combination of genes interacting in a certain environment that produces what you call yourself... but not just that... it's your own feedback processes and the constant review of past experience that defines how we will behave in the future... then you have to consider self awareness... cuz we "know that we know"... and you can analyse, identify, imagine, create, recreate, reflect etc. ... of course all this is based on a determine baseline of genetic structure that reacts to the environment."
That's a 180 degree flip-flop. First you say we are different because we do not just act from our genetic makeup and environmental determinism. Second, you say that we do only act from genetic makeup and environmental determinism.
Dude, omg, ugly extremist, preposterous, you're being stoned? Just talking, nothing extreme going on.
If you want to argue that self awareness (determined or not) makes us special;
Great apes and dolphins pass the mirror test, dogs pass the smell test (a version for dogs, who do not rely on vision much), and surely more animals will come.
If you want to argue that acting on past experiences (determined or not) makes us special;
Every mammal, birds, computers, Roomba vacuums...
No it is not a flip flop... let's see if I can make myself clear... we have a ground reference of function... then we build on it... what I'm saying is the two work together... you have environmental influence on a certain genetic make up... and then there is constant feedback, you define yourself by the two processes working together... a cat here acts basically the same way it does on the other side of the globe... or bear... or a dolphin or an ape... there isn't has much variety has with humans... we are born almost blank is terms of function... with some basic reactions, and motor reflexes... we have to engage to learn... to shape ourselves... and if we don't we won't learn... we won't do...
if you have a cat... it does not even need another cat to copy... he will behave like a cat non the less... humans are self organizing... but of course we have a genetic background to define it... but it's not as hard-wired as any other species... if Einstein was born somewhere in Zimbabwe I doubt he would have became the man he was...
And I never said we are the only ones with self-awareness... I said and quote
"...At the level we do this, we are on a totally different level than any other specie..."
the mirror test... is stupid by itself... does not mean anything...
I repeat... "to know that you know"... that is our biggest difference... I never said we're apart from nature or better, or superior... I don't stand by those terms... what I can see and talk about... is actions... behaviour... and then yes... we do react and engage with the environment a lot differently from other species... and just the simple fact I'm saying this... and know that I'm saying this... that is special (me as a human not because it's me obviously), like I said, I don't only know... I know that I know...
I look at myself in the mirror and I know it's me, but I also know that I know it's me... that ability is yet to be seen on other species... not only that... but what we make with that knowledge.
And when you analyse potential... you'll realize what human kind can achieve... I mean if you take in consideration the exponential progression we're having... and try and look down say some 500 years... the possibilities are absurd... or we can blow ourselves to oblivion in the next decade or two.
We can play God... but I think we can't handle the lighting stick just yet.
I know the post is probably very confusing... cuz I wrote it at the speed of though... I apologize... cuz I don't have time to verify it..
cheers
You did flip flop. It's in writing right down there. You wrote our thinking is "Not just from instinct, genetic makeup or environmental causality" and then although our level of self awareness, etc. makes us different "of course all this is based on a determine baseline of genetic structure that reacts to the environment."
"a cat here acts basically the same way it does on the other side of the globe... or bear... or a dolphin or an ape... there isn't has much variety has with humans... we are born almost blank is terms of function"
That is not true. Humans are also not very good at measuring differences in animal personalities. Even differences between groups of humans cause us to say things like "Chinese people all look the same".
"if Einstein was born somewhere in Zimbabwe I doubt he would have became the man he was"
If the dogs that Played Lassie were born in Zimbabwe, I doubt they would have become the dogs they were
Arguments against determinism often back up their point by stating that events happen "randomly", which would only mean that our thoughts are also random and not "choices". Einstein believed that things only appeared "random" because we are only human and cannot yet find the other factors. There is a fight against determinism just like there is a fight against atheism. I don't wish to keep debating this though as we could end up talking for ages. I recommend "randy's philosophical journey" for determinism arguments.
Ricardo,you do not control you're wants thus you don't control you're actions, i thought it's not needed to specify this.. I understand you react to thing, like even rocks do,but i do not belive you control youreself. You do not control what you're environment is nor you're wants, .I understand conciosness as a fizical,complex thing , so you can not control it, like you do not control gravity.Thow you have an effect,you do not control.All the things you do in life you do eighter because wants,eighter because knowlage or simply reflex,and all of these are out of our controll.Tho it's nice that we have the ilusion that we control ourselfs,it gives confidance and helps survival:D
There you go generalizing everything... Yes we are not in control... yes we are products of our environment... yes our brain does give us a false sense of control... yes every moment is equal, and there aren't key choices in life... but dude, I'm not going to discuss Caos Theory with you or follow you again in a discussion of the origin of the Universe... just because you have the need to disagree... cuz I'm not saying we're in control...
I was trying to complete your post with some extra knowledge... you should be a little more open to learning... I wasn't contradicting you, I was trying to complete your post
one thing is to know you're hungry and act on it...
another is to know "that you know you're hungry"... when you know that, that does not necessarily mean your in control... but you have the choice to act on it or not... though it would be stupid not to... but if the reason and the person is strong enough... even hunger can be a choice... I'm being extremist to make a point here ok!
or
You are with somebody, but you know that she or he just isn't good for you, but you stick with it against rational thinking... even though it goes against you emotional safety.
you need a cellphone... a practical thing... for making phone calls and text messaging... but when you actually buy it... it ends up being the colour you like, with the design that's more attractive to you... same goes to almost everything.. clothes, car, house, books, pens, watches (within you budget limits of course :)...) everything you make a decision about is influenced by you emotional background of reference... and that plays a fundamental part of rational thinking.... but you can choose whether you act on them or not... not on every level... not on every occasion... I agree... but that's how thought functions... at least the model so far...
of course you can't control it.... but you can decide on it... not always... but not just sometimes to... it's our "standard state" sort of speak... when applied to circumstantial life... well then it has to be contextualized, studied... and that is my day job... so I know what I'm saying... or at least I have evidence for it... not just opinion.
And you contradicted yourself... first you said:
"....And from my experience you can control you're action but not you're emotions..."
now you're saying:
"...Ricardo,you do not control you're wants thus you don't control you're actions..."
this is proof for your natural talent for disagreeing... :P
Brilliant documentary! Very enjoyable! The comments... just watch the doc.
we can't control what we see or hear or smell too... all sensory information you receive is processed by the brain, and though you're not aware of everything every single input of information is processed ... I didn't say we can control our emotions... I said they act has part of the rational process... read properly first...
"although our responses and behaviours are mostly hard-wired and subconscious when it comes to emotion..."
Neurology is the area I wont take crap from you... lazy boy :)
you said:
"...you do not control a large part of you're actions , like a human beeing..."
.... you don't control the physiological mechanisms (some you can... with training)... but you're in control of you're actions... you can even starve yourself to death if you want to... when something is important your brain brings it to your awareness... since we can't be aware of every single thing that is happening in the brain (too much information) when something is important it shifts to your "window of awareness"... so you can attend to it... emotion is a part of the homoeostatic process of the Human being... a very complex... and important one... it serves to tell you what is good for you... and what is bad for you... in a simple and elementary way... but you can act on them... you don't respond like a robot to your emotions... that´s the difference between conciousness... and self-conciousness.
We don´t drive ourselves trough emotion... we rationalize them first.
consciousness is... to know
self-awareness or self-consciousness is... to know that you know
Emotion and feeling play a major role on this... you should read the work of António Damásio for better understanding.
Of course sometimes we just react... that is a self-preservation mechanism... when something is a immediate threat... we react... the information does not become aware to us cuz you need to flee or attack in order to protect yourself... fight or flight response... all animals have it to manage potential menacing or stressful situations.
I don't kill them cause I am lazy...And from my experience you can control you're action but not you're emotions:PAnd it's usefull not to kill people like that since they can became usefull in time I mean like a human being you can easily change youre mind.
I heard that feelings is the way by wich the subconcious(aka the ancestor inside our brain) controls youre behaviour with substances,like extasy(dopamine nordadrenaline etc) And it activates on sets of behaviour not on specifics ,like beeing like in a group of people being admired, loking for a fizicaly fit mate,a mother for youre child etc, I mean you do not control a large part of you're actions , like a human beeing I mean not personally
It´s the limbic system...or primitive brain... it's the main structure responsible for emotion... the subconscious is a result of brain function... and emotion play a major part in rational thinking contrary of people think... although our responses and behaviours are mostly hard-wired and subconscious when it comes to emotion... we do rationalize them (and use them as part of the rational process it self)... you don't go killing everyone that displeases you.
Neurophisics has an ideea abouat feelings, an fizical explination
Fizics is something we discovered,not what we maked up.It's not a complete language but it is the language that is used to describe the universe thus universal.The only thing you cand argue aboat fizics is if the world you experience is the truth,wich can't be proven.Thow if you don't belive the world you experience is true you have nothing left in this world:d. So I tend to argue that fizics is not an subjective way of describing the world,but an universall one since you cand change the tools with which you experience the world thus you can understand almost every creature by it's own criteria.(Telescope,microscope,uv cameras, sonar(whales)radar(bats)and so on)
What about experiencing life through feelings and things that are intangible? Like love, hate, sadness, fear, empathy, courage, etc.? How do those fit in your rules of fizics?
But it doesn't matter anyway, because again, fizics and emotions are only relevant to humans. Other species on earth cant grasp these concepts and dont need to.
to all... you must see 'Le Syndrome du Titanic' - the Titanic syndrome.
it's made by Nicolas Hulo. He's like the French Terrence Malick, very visual and deep... more a ideology/philosophical opinion documentary... but worth the time... at least for my standards. If you know the book, and heard about the the concept you should take a peek, if you didn't... well then you should take a peek all the same... :)
peace
When I saied we all are equall I ment that we all respect the same rules(fizics) and we all came to life without being asked,and we all recived information and things whithout deserving them and we all use what we get in life in the way that we think is best(whell in bacteria the genes do the thinking but ultimately we all do the same thing) So by this means I think we are all equall, bettle bacteria extremofiles or human
You still dont get it, the mere fact that you can make this comparison even within the rules of (fizics?) Im supposing you mean physics is STILL a humanistic approach and only of value to humans.
The only species on earth that has the concept of equality is humans, a chimp cant comprehend equality, much less a slug. So you're STILL using a comparison only of value to humans. Slugs, chimps, bacteria, they can care less about equality or comprehend what it means.
Equality, inferiority, superiority its all the same concept... species are INCOMPARABLE unless they are in context of human values.
Rick if you belive in God, that is the reason my debate with you was useless, because you do not need facts to belive humans are superiour, it's one f the postulates in crestianism so...
I dont believe in god, I believe in a higher plane of existence after death, but not a religious "god".
Listen, carefully, I agree that superiority is subjective UNLESS its within a humanistic agenda. If we dont put a context to what is superior then its pointless to discuss it.
I realize my criteria are based on things that are only of value to a human because its the only way you can use that word without it being opinion. Incomparable things can not be argued, you need to equate something to something else to compare it, and within THAT context you can have a comparison, and in many of those cases, humans are inferior, equal or even superior to other species.
If we're to discuss something purely subjective we might as well just end the discussion at these things are incomparable, the end.
It could be framed in terms of sentient beings suffering; nothing to do with a humanistic agenda and hardly subjective. As averting suffering is something absolutely consistent, transcending any notion of human centric categorization. Further, modern technology provides deeper insights into how to quantify pain.
The problem is are we talking about physical or emotional pain? And what is worse, emotional pain or physical pain? Some people get pleasure from receiving and causing physical pain they are called masochists and sadists, so again, without context, we have nothing.
Though I would agree, it would be hard to disprove that our ability to cause suffering is unmatched by any other sentient being on earth.
The laziest way to argue your position and opinions is to use someone else's quotes.
- Me
Unless you use someone's quotes as a means to back up your own arguments, you might as well be silent.
-Me
Someone's great quotes are irrelevant if they are not within the context of the discussion.
-Me
The higher intelligence also leads to higher orders of 'rationalized', often much more destructive ignorance.
Animals have a much higher propensity for aloofness and and servility. Though the propensity exists amongst humans, not to the same degree. This differential seems to give credence to the idea that humans are superior, even if only slightly.
As far as suffering, animals have less capacity to remove their suffering due to the lack of higher intelligence. For even with higher intelligence, most humans have difficulty doing so. At the same time there is an additional burden as touched on above gained through higher intelligence, a whole additional range of suffering in fact.
This still does not negate the fact that humans have a higher capacity to abolish the suffering.
LOL, you should have watch the experts talks in the documentary carefully (second half of the film). They addressed your questions of pain and intellegence.
LOL, you should read my comment carefully, as I didn't ask a single question. Literally nothing said during the portions you speak of refute my statements (again, NOT questions).
Consider 'biting your tongue' once in a while.
Hey, check Cambridge dictionary on definitions of question "any matter that needs to be dealt with or considered" . Questions can mean problems/issues. It does not need to be sentences with a question marks in the end. If you did not understand what the speakers mean, watch it again and think. This is the only thing I can say. One more hint for you. Evolutionary continuity.
"Multi famam, conscientiam pauci verentur"
Many fear their reputation, few their conscience. (Pliny)
"Mea mihi conscientia pluris est quam omnium sermo"
My conscience means more to me than all speech. (Cicero)
"Malum quidem nullum esse sine aliquo bono"
There is, to be sure, no evil without something good. (Pliny the Elder)
“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.”
? Albert Einstein
moving on now.
“Life is an opportunity, benefit from it.
Life is beauty, admire it.
Life is a dream, realize it.
Life is a challenge, meet it.
Life is a duty, complete it.
Life is a game, play it.
Life is a promise, fulfill it.
Life is sorrow, overcome it.
Life is a song, sing it.
Life is a struggle, accept it.
Life is a tragedy, confront it.
Life is an adventure, dare it.
Life is luck, make it.
Life is too precious, do not destroy it.
Life is life, fight for it.”
? Mother Teresa
As all human beings are, in my view, creatures of God's design, we must respect all other human beings. That does not mean I have to agree with their choices or agree with their opinions, but indeed I respect them as human beings.
Stockwell Day
All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions.
William Butler Yeats
A great many people mistake opinions for thought.
Herbert V. Prochnow
“Man is the cruelest animal. At tragedies, bullfights, and crucifixions he has so far felt best on earth; and when he invented hell for himself, behold, that was his very heaven.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
"Are we superior to other life forms in any general, objective sense? From what we learned on this journey, evidence suggests equality between all life forms, that advantages do not come without disadvantages, and that all life is interconnected."
-The Superior Human? (2012)
Agreed
If you take the time to read my posts carefully... I never said the contrary... I even said the Doc was Brilliant!
But I don' agree with the word equality... cuz even that has to be put in reference and interpreted with criteria.
I do agree with equality in Rights... and I can appreciate the differences without exploitation.
"Are we superior to other life forms in any general, objective sense? From what we learned on this journey, evidence suggests equality between all life forms, that advantages do not come without disadvantages, and that all life is interconnected."
-The Superior Human? (2012)
"....
"Nobody knows if the "Humanzee" is possible or not."
I disagree with you on this. There are people who know it is possible. And I did not change the position.
..."
... In what way is there a difference in those two sentences...
I'ts possible... YES ... I agree..............
Doable ???
you need to do it... to actually say it is... you need observation and then you need confirmation...
And it has been atempted... and it didn't work!!
So evidence although little actually points to... not doable... I'm not saying it isn't possible... but until somebody accomplishes it... nobody knows for sure
"Of course we’re unique. A squirrel is unique, a rat is unique, a dog is unique, by definition. "
-Dr Steven Best
sorry if I have offended you... and I really mean it!
but I still think you rush in interpreting what others are saying just for the sake of disagreeing... although it is not a personal offence, it still is disrespectful...
and things like :
"You need to study harder"
so you had your part
but I still want to apologize... you're right... and I was out of order
I'm sorry (not joking)
--------
but I still think you rush in interpreting what others are saying just for the sake of disagreeing... although it is not a personal offence, it still is disrespectful...
and things like :
"You need to study harder"
--------------------
Amen brother, amen.
wow. lol
Forget RATMAN cuz obviously you're missing the point... just let it go
You are the one missed the points, rats and mice are very different. If replacing mice by rats in a joke is justified ( many people do this). Then scientifically speaking, replacing you by chimpanzee in a joke is even more justified.
Richardo, the thinking chimpanzee... this is a joke, for the love
yes... it is justified... it was even funny... so clearly you can do that.
or You could even say ...Alice the whining cow ... since we are all animals and the all the same.
If this is your method coping valid criticism to your flawed arguments/statements.
Bye Bye. I have no more time for you.
Sorry to have said Ratman... instead of mouseman... I take it back, and assume my lacking of scientific assertiveness while making a FREAKING JOKE!!
For the love..... I SAID RATMAN!!!cuz it sounds better than mouseman....
AGAIN A JOKE
and stop editing your posts... cuz I read different things every time I read them again ...
Im amazingly curious to find out how you can create a human/chimp hybrid without gene manipulation since these experiments were tried and failed.
Thank you RICK ... that's exactly what I'm saying
"IN VITRO human fertilisation can be pretty much the same thing for human and chimpanzee hybrid."
IT IS... and i has been tried ... IT DID NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!
So although it continues to be a possibility... it needs more testing...
read the freaking posts... without the need to argue them...
Mice, men share 99 percent of genes
CNN
goggle it
I got the article, but that was not what I was asking. I was asking the source for rateman, you said it's others word.
BTW CNN is a not a respectable source of science
In what way is that different from creating a Mule in vitro .... using horses and Donkeys... ???
OBVIOUSLY....
What do you think of selective breeding (humans put them together) of donkey and horse on the farms? is it interbreed? If yes, why you say human-chimpanzee in vitro is not interbreed ? Both have some level of human intervention.
Ok... just stop for a moment ok... cuz you are driving me nuts here...
let's see if we can find common ground
I never said that human-chimpanzee in vitro is not interbreeding....
IT IS.
I responded to Rick's comment by saying
.......
"That is not interbreeding....that's engineering . Interbreeding does not require genetic manipulation...
with genetic engineering, eventually you'll be able to create hybrids with all kinds of species not only chimps. Of course the closer two spices are at the genetic level the easier it is to mix them... and requires less direct genetic manipulation... She meant it has horses interbreed with donkeys... giving birth to Mules... and that is an assumption."
........
cuz HE said that you where referring to GENETIC MANIPULATION.... I said you weren't!!! you were referring to IN VITRO INTERBREEDING...
And my only claim.... and read it carefully this time... is
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE... it's being researched... it was even attempted in 1910 and IT DID NOT WORK!!!
ok
any questions?
please fell free to point them coherently.
IN VITRO can be consider one type of GENETIC MANIPULATION
There are evidence. I told you, go to talk to people in the field. Thoes information will not usually be formally published because the scientists will be in trouble.
Jesus Girl... you are really stubborn...
I'll agree the term genetic manipulation were not the best words on my previous post... but on the original post I said genetic altering... or engineering... Changing genetic material...
of course in vitro is genetic manipulation... if you're saying you are manipulating genes in a artificial envierment... but you are not altering them.
The whole discussion should not have happened. If you did not said this.
"Nobody knows if the "Humanzee" is possible or not."
I disagree with you on this. There are people who know it is possible. And I did not change the position.
"you are really stubborn"
It is inappropriate in an academic debate (as lest it is the case for me) mentioning personal things like this. I can give you hundreds personal attack. But I will not do it. Because I do not have time for this kind of immature fight. I am more interested in the truth.
If this problem persists. I will stop wasting my time with you.
IN VITRO does not require altering genetic material...
In vitro replicates the natural process... just in a controlled environment...
to say that chimps and humans can interbreed, your assuming they can without any genetic manipulation.
IN VITRO human fertilisation can be pretty much the same thing for human and chimpanzee hybrid.
Genetic manipulation is an ambiguous term. People can say many common selective breedings of farm anmials are genetic manipulations too (change genes)
I can read just fine
"Its is possible for humans to interbreed with other great apes, such as chimpanzees."
that's what you've said...
if you don't what to be miss understood... choose your words more carefully
Interbreeding
the act of pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes
you the one defending scientific accuracy... act on it
Again... Ratman was a joke... hell that hole post was a joke
Definition of interbreed in cambridge dictionary "to breed or cause to breed with members of another breed or group"
In vitro hybrid is interbreed in your definition. It would need a male and a female. Just like how human produce in vitro human babies.
I am sorry you did not understand what interbreed mean. You need to study harder.
Thank you for verifying that you were not all serious in your post.
I think her point was that genes can be altered thus theoretically we could modify an ape embryo with human genes to produce a new species, not directly inseminate an ape.
But its pointless to argue with her because she cant see beyond her cause of animal rights to the higher philosophical question of superiority, which without a human perspective and context is a pointless discussion anyway.
That is not interbreeding....that's engineering . Interbreeding does not require genetic manipulation...
with genetic engineering, eventually you'll be able to create hybrids with all kinds of species not only chimps. Of course the closer two spices are at the genetic level the easier it is to mix them... and requires less direct genetic manipulation... She meant it has horses interbreed with donkeys... giving birth to Mules... and that is an assumption.
"She meant it has horses interbreed with donkey" I am sorry you cannot read. This is not what I mean.
I put very clear in the post, "in the context of current in vitro technology". The article of Richard Dawkin I mentioned provide further information.
I am sorry you assume others view points. I am sorry you have to made up things to support you flawed arguments.
I'm not confusing or mixing anything.... you're the one can't read properly apparently...
NOBODY KNOWS IT'S POSSIBLE cuz nobody successfully created a Human-ape Hybrid... and it has been tried... Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was the first to actually attempt to create a human–ape hybrid. 3 female chimps where inseminated with human sperm... all 3 didn't get pregnant... and 1 died in the process.
So although it may be a theoretical possibility... you can't know until you've actually done it... so what I said is not untrue like you claim... it is the only valid claim.
mixing DNA and Genes:
a gene is a package of DNA ...the chemical building blocks of DNA are the same for every living organism, the ordering or sequence of the building blocks varies in GENES. This variation (or genes) is what determines an organism’s physical make-up and features. So I don't see my fallacy... you're the one who's lacking in some genetic knowledge.
Has for mixing mice and rats... nop.. I didn't cuz they where not my words... they where the words of ric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research... He said mice not rats...
and last.... IT WAS A JOKE!!!!!!!!
Ask some working scientists you can reach in the related field. They will tell you the academia is well aware of the possibility of the hybrid.
"Ratman??" was in your post of mice.
I did a quick Google research, I did not find ric Lander said anything like that.
"Ratman??" looks most like your comment to ric Lander's mice information. If you did not mix rats and mice, you should have said "mouseman" instead. Because the information you cited was about mice. Thats why I said you mixed mice and rats.
If you insist ric Lander said ""Ratman??"" Please provide source that people can verify.
I've posted a link of CNN news were you'll find reference... it's waiting approval
you just need to post the article title, I can google
People who jump into conclusions without proper research, facts and independent thinking, are advertising their lack of academic ability and understanding of science.
if we are not superior then we surely should not feel any guilt extinguishing some of the species we don't like. if threatens the survival of some of us, it must go. being at the same level excludes us from responsibility towards other species.
just as the tiger slays other animals threatening it's cubs we must slay them all because it threatens our cubs.
i love animals, but i cannot give into this kind of BS.
consciousness is measured by it's complexity. if we would have the same as animals, then there wont be any animal left.
Nice logic. Which means racist people also think they have responsibilities to blacks. Without the racist attitudes, they would have killed the other racial groups for their own interests.
This is not what happened.
yeeah, but we are interbreedable - and we do - with black people therefore there is no difference between us. they are just fellow "superiors".
Its is possible for humans to interbreed with other great apes, such as chimpanzees. We are great apes. We are genetically very similar to great apes, share about 98% of DNA.
nope. it is not. 2% is a long way
Humans can take blood transfusions from chimpanzees. The perceived large difference between humans and animals in general are in people's mind (discrimination against animals). Not a scientific reality.
difference between humans and animals is pretty clear. i have nothing against eating them. there are some species specific for this. what i dislike is how they are treated in their lifetime. did you know that the common chicken have a complex social life? and they love music (thus they have feelings).
if you are an animal rights person, you should fight for a better life for those animals and not getting into philosophical questions. all in all you can sum it up by one feeling, empathy. you may consider yourself superior for having infinite of that.
superior means, we may have an absolute influence upon some species existence. if there was no influence then animal rights would be obsolete. by this definition bacteria are some of the only ones that are not inferior to us because we live in symbiosis with them. (and yeast.. :) i love beer)
on the long term, as we learn more and more about animals, because of lack of need, we limit more and more our impact on them. sooner or later they are going to inherit the world. where we go? that i cannot answer. another planet maybe or oblivion...
i have nothing against animal rights, they should be reinforced, but not on the basis of stupidities like superior/inferior and other ideo-pseudo-scientific reasons, but on the reasons that reside within. you love animals with your heart and not out of reasoning or the verbal defecation of a documentary.
Of course animals and humans are different. But not that different. Please do not assume my view points. Humans are different too, you are different from me.
I am not an animal rights person. My primary interests is science. But I share views with animal rights ideology.
Nobody knows if the "Humanzee" is possible or not... but mice and man share 99% of genes to :
Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans.
"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."
Ratman??
Don't think so...
"Nobody knows if the "Humanzee" is possible or not."
Untrue. Search "Richard Dawkins: How would you feel about a half-human half-chimp hybrid?" The hybrid is very possible in the context of current in vitro technology. Basically what is waiting is just someone actually do so and inform the public. But scientists cannot usually openly perform this test because of ethical dilemas. Some speculate those tests have been performed secretly.
You mixed DNA and genes, they are different. Chimpanzees are closer to humans than rats. But you are right, we are genetically very similar to rats/mice too (mentally physically). Companion rat masters would tell you that. There are plenty of vidoes of pet rats on Youtube
You also mixed mice and rats. In fact the genetic difference between rats and mice are ( about10 times) larger than the difference between humans and Chimpazees. Which means In the eyes of rats who share your views, humans and chimpanzee are the same.
Casapu - Only 19 years old? You have a bright future!
Ricardo - Some nice, deep posts. Sounds a bit like what the Zeitgeist movement is going for. I suppose the world is moving towards a resource based economy.
Oh Yes. You can just tell who is smart and who is not by reading what they have posted from the very beginning.
Animal products are very problematic for human health. Search vegan/vegetarianism documentaries on Youtube for more information.
It looks like one very rude post of Rick Kiriakidis has been removed. Thanks moderators for maintaining a civil atmosphere.
Yes, well, I guess calling me pathetic and hopeless is not rude. Oh well, to each there own point of view it seems. BTW, you have the most closed mind I have ever encountered.
In a philosophical sense supremacy is subjective without context, there is no doubt, if I say which is superior grape or washing machine? There's no point of reference to determine a superior.
If I say which is superior in longevity, a turtle who lives 200 years or a human that lives on average 65 to 70, the answer is clear the turtle is superior.
Now, if I want to get philosophical I can argue that a person who lives 10 years and experiences nothing but joy and a person who lives 100 years and experiences nothing but hardship, I could argue that the person who lived 10 years had a superior life. And how do I know this, because as a human I KNOW that joy is superior to misery. That is the point I'm trying to convey. Context is everything. Though the person who lived 100 years was superior in longevity, he did not have a superior life.
Oh my f******* god. The amount of hippie that I was exposed to in this video is making my brain shut down!! I HAD to stop after they started talking about intelligence. F***, I'm so dumbfounded I don't even know what to say.
It looks like one very rude post by Rick Kiriakidis has been removed. Thanks moderators for maintaining a civil discussion environment.
Animal products are very problematic for human heath. Please search The China Study (book) for more information. "It examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products and illnesses such as cancers of the breast, prostate, and bowel, diabetes, coronary heart disease, obesity, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, degenerative brain disease, and macular degeneration." (from the wikipedia page)
There are also free vegan/vegetarianism documentaries on Youtube.
Thanks to all readers of the post.
So you think existing as long as possible is the goal in life?
In my opinion, it doesn't matter at all, if we are superior to other species of earth. What matters is existing potential, as this universe seems to work with potential differences.
From an atheistic point of view, exterminating other species, eliminates potential of useful evolution and is simply not fair to any lifeform. We are superior because we developed a greater part of our potential.Would it be fair if another lifeform vastly superior than the humans decided to destroy us? We kind of inhibit the natural processes and destroying wonderful life and we dont know for sure if it exists elsewhere. Of course, I don't expect from the human race to indulge in such subtleties, if it doesn't evolve to respect itself first. Everything in its own time.
From a religious point of view, God created humans as a crown and gem to its creation with the responsibility to protect and beautify every part of the creation. Not doing so is failure and arrogance not fitting to anyone who claims to be religious.
We must understand, that it's not always about domination. If we cannot understand this, we atleast should see that it is not to our interest to adopt such mentality because chances are, that there exist much more advanced than us species; they would not have the slightest qualm to exterminate us, if they see how we disrespect life.
The species would get better at fighting digestion that way, there are ants that go to get killed for the qween, so what are we talking aboat, there are suicidal people,you assume that all the people are like you or listen to youre criteria... Not the way life works...
Yes, if it benefits the species down the line, sure then it would have to be re-evaluated down the line, but what if it didn't and the species was extinct because of it?
Under the context of survival Id say surviving is superior to dying.
Rick why do you condier not getting eaten a good thing? I know some bacteria that love it.. This is what I am tring to say, there is a big mistake in youre criteria making
You're using semantics, Im sure the tape worm wants to be ingested to live in my intestines, but it does not want to be DIGESTED by my intestines or eaten by bacteria living in my intestines.
Im sure if you asked the bacteria they would not want to be treated with antibiotics or be eaten by other bacteria that feed on them.
Why was that refereed to me??... I was responding to Casapu
my mistake.
so... to clarify... you either have something and establish a ground of reference or you have nothing at all... to say something is equal is to establish criteria non the less... absolute analytic thought is impossible...
You need to determine a scale if you're going to compare something, otherwise you're just stating opinions. WITHIN THAT SCALE you CAN prove something is superior to another, but ONLY within that scale, outside of that scale its all subjective and opinion.
I mean, if you want to compare slowness, fine, the slug is superior in slowness to a lion. But what would be the use of comparing ability to adapt to its environment and then the opposite, ability to NOT adapt to its environment? That makes no sense.
I just don't agree with your usage of the word faith
I don't have faith that nobody is influencing my senses I infer it by reeling on logic... does not make me right though
in·fer·ence
? ?[in-fer-uhns, -fruhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act or process of inferring.
2.
something that is inferred: to make rash inferences.
3.
Logic .
a.
the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
b.
the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
c.
a proposition reached by a process of inference.
but faith...
faith
? ?[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing
belief that is not based on proof:
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Ricardo you are right,but only if you think that you can rely that no "one" decives you're senses,thing you cannot verify so again faith,Ps:I watche RANDY's filozofical journey... briliant:X:D
"Speciesism is a term coined by Richard Ryder in 1970. The word refers to the widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals."
-Richard Ryder's website
=)
to Casapu Radu
I wote this a wile back... and the title was actually faith
note: it's an opinion...
"FAITH!
For a long time ignored the true meaning of this word! ... in fact is nothing more than a Word ... but the feeling that defines it, is usually taken for granted, and easily became a bias ... more a social banality whose meaning fades over time.
It is not a question of religious fundamentalisms. .. when something has been submitted to us, when we are confronted with a question, alternatives, possibilities arise, whose value is not real but within a certain probability ... faith is not accept the truth that everyone accepts because Yes! ... because the father and the grandfather believed and the parent's parent's grandfather believed until the origin of prejudice ...
Faith is to have the courage to act in unknown territory accepting the odds ... we all have acts of faith every day ... in more small things…
When we wake up, and get out of the bed, our eyes look at the floor, and we accept we actually see the floor ... but in fact what we are seeing is an interpretation of what our brain perceives as real ... not reality ... when we decided to set foot on the ground we accepting the likelihood that the ground is really there and not a cliff ... we accept without questioning the interpretation of our brain is true and that we are not in danger!"
........
I still have this opinion... I just don't say faith... cause faith is a type of inference... that does not require perception or validity... like I said you accept there is a ground cuz you have never fallen out a bed and just kept going... you support your believing not only by perception ... cuz you are actually seeing it... but with confirmation of past experience...
everything we know is filtered by the brain... so we'll never get reality in first hand... it's impossible... but I still wake up and still put my feet on the ground... maybe one day I'll fall right through it forever... who knows
"All species are related biologically and through evolution, and instead of treating the other species like objects, we should be treating them as our evolutionary cousins, as our kindred. We should stop exploiting them in laboratories, in factory farms, in the wild, and elsewhere. I felt that speciesism was an unintelligent, out-of-date sort of prejudice."
- Dr Richard Ryder, creator of the term speciesism
In order to achieve that I think a lot of change must happen first.
We have to change our perspectives about everything... education, economy... as long as profit is the first priority for every culture in the planet... everything else just falls back... some as secondary problems like human life and personal value, some get neglected, and some even get abused like you're saying... I personally believe we can achieve that as a species... but not any time soon...
But I think this is not a problem of people per say... many are just victims in the global system... and would act a lot differently in a resource based economy... we're on a very critical point in human history... we can start making the changes... if every one acts on it... with reason and not violence... we can achieve it... if Galileo would have started a war to prove the Earth was not the centre of the Universe ... the concept would have taken a lot more time to be accepted...
"If people base the success of a species on how human-like it is, humans will always appear to be the most successful."
-The Superior Human? (2012)
"studies suggest that human concern for animal rights may be an evolutionary trait, and that compassion for animals is correlated with compassion for other humans. Earlier studies have established links between interpersonal violence and animal cruelty."
-Wikipedia
How sad that a debate/discussion has turned into a stoning. And it had such a great start.
It is a scientific fact that those societies believe human superiority to a lesser degree kill lesser animals for food and animal testing per capita. A society can not claim it is civil when large amount of exploitations of animals exist, non-human animals are our evolutionary cousins.
"Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture."
-Wikipedia
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
-Wikipedia
Many documentaries on this website talked about animals amazing abilities. People who jump into conclusions without proper research, facts and independent thinking are very boring.
"Anthropocentrism describes an analysis from the perspective that human beings are the central, only or most significant animal species, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective."
-Wikipedia
Ah, the good old zealots come out, when you have arguments that differ to theirs they attack you and call you names, then they do it with subtlety by generalizing and attacking a group you belong to, good job! Keep it up, you guys sure know how to end a debate by disparaging others. And then you'll accuse people of having closed minds after you driven them away, congratulations on your tactics.
"Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote prejudice against non-humans based on morally irrelevant physical differences."
-Wikipedia
Thanks to all readers of the post.
"Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category."
-Wikipedia
Humans are not superior, human supremacists in general are not very good at imagination =)
Thanks for these great quotes that have no bearing what so ever in this discussion.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.
-Mahatma Gandhi
“I believe that intelligence is probably overrated. It’s not necessarily a good thing for a species’ survival”.
-Staphen Hawking
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
-Albert Einstein
Humans are not superior, the superiority is an illusion of ignorant people =)
Is this what this discussion has reverted to, calling people names? Grow up people.
Many documentaries on this website also talked about animals amazing abilities. People who jump into conclusions without proper research, facts and independent thinking are very boring.
No one is denying that many animals, many species have incredible abilities, some abilities that surpass the human species. Those abilities though, need to be evaluated within a collection of abilities, you cannot list one ability of one species and dismiss another of another species because they dont share the same ability, you need to compare the overall abilities of each species.
What if i like to make muscles and use the wrench withought the motor? You know how many people missed the ice delivery man because of the fridge? It's all about taste man get used to it... I am sorry if I am ruining you're dreams:D
Overall a great documentary. I highly recommend this and other documentaries above in the Possibly Similar section. I just watched one about ants that was amazing too. It really reveals a different perspective on humanity. I guess humanity is full of speciesism.
Great site :)
If I give you a tool like a wrench and then compare it to another wrench that does the same job but the second wrench is flexible, has a motor attached to it to make tightening/loosening more easy, has more reach, can be operated at a distance would you not agree that the second wrench is the superior tool?
Superiority in this context is NOT a matter of opinion, ITS FACT.
"You cannot determine tangible criteria for something that is a matter of taste and opinion like color."
True. Just like superiority. Superiority means better, value means worth. They are both opinions.
"When I say A human is more resourceful then a shark because a shark cannot conceive of building a machine to help it hunt, Im not stating an opinion, its a fact. How hard is that to understand?"
Yes, that appears to be a fact. We are more resourceful than them. But before you said it makes us superior, not more resourceful.
"How about this, YOU come up with a list and disprove that humans aren't superior."
This is not needed. Superiority is an opinion and requires no list.
You still cannot understand that "better", "superior", "higher", "cuter", etc. are opinions. You then argue "value" is subjective, but "superiority" is objective. You are hopeless and pathetic. I will now stop teaching you as you are a waste of time. I have never told any student this before.
"""""When I say A human is more resourceful then a shark because a shark cannot conceive of building a machine to help it hunt, Im not stating an opinion, its a fact. How hard is that to understand?"
Yes, that appears to be a fact. We are more resourceful than them. But before you said it makes us superior, not more resourceful.""""
So you even agree here that humans are more resourceful than a shark thus in the context of resourcefulness logically humans are superior, right? How is that an opinion?
*****You are hopeless and pathetic. I will now stop teaching you as you are a waste of time. I have never told any student this before.****
Desperate words of a loser.
I have stopped wasting time on him a long time ago. Most people are reasonable. That is enough.
Yes I saied science is not the truth and it is based on faith just like religion, i use it cause it helpes me more but i do not think it is superiour:)) I am sorry for you...
Man we invented the criteria... we cand change it when we want... This is why I do not agree with you...You cand group animals by what criteria you want
In order to prove anything,you must belive in the validity of the mesurements of the instruments with wich you measure the world.Remembe our instruments once told us that te Earth is the center of the universe... Without an instrument to see the world you can't prove anything.... And somme of the instruments(Which no necesarily tell the truth since we can't know the truth) are : Matematics Logic Religion and Fizics(wich we all use on faith) So basically faith is you're instrument:D
You would love the movie "Randy's Philosophical Journey"
I know what your saying ... hell I have a post in my blog from a few years back that have some of the sentences you just put here... you are just confusing concepts... like I said it's semantics... you should look the definition and origin of words to see the differences in concept... if you are assuming something it doe not require faith... cause it's not based on will... it's based on perception.... I'm going to post something I wore in my blog a few years back and you'll see that we are not so different... just have to translate it ... and I really understand your point and agree at some degree... just don«t like the randomness and arrogant way you are putting it in.... but I like your fighting spirit... let me translate it and I'll be back
So you just randomly add the statement that you feel ignorant people to be pathetic at the end of your response to my comment, but it was not directed at me or my comment? You just added that statement in the abstract; is that what you are saying?
With all due respect, that is hard to believe. It seems like you meant it as an insult but I can't possibly know your intent so we can just let it go if you want to.
In future discourse I think it would be more effective if we didn't make random abstract statements about our likes and dislikes. Things would work better if we could focus enough to stay on the subject matter.
Relative to the statement about you feeling that care and compassion for all of these creatures is the highest of all virtues, I did not make that up. I started that statement with "correct me if I am wrong" and then offered that understanding up to you, to see if I am accurately reflecting how you feel.
I just want to understand your opinion and perspective. Now I am completely confused because in your other response to me you go on to quote statistics about the widespread epidemic of the mistreatment of animals.
So if you don't feel like we need to be more compassionate to the animals then why bring up the statistics while using words like "exploitation" and "murder".
I feel that the abuse of animals in our society is a terrible thing that needs to change but, literally at the end of the day, everyday, I have to feed my children. I don't currently have the luxury of staying at home and growing the food we need to live so the industrial food complex is my only viable option. Thus, not unlike a great many people in the world, I turn a blind eye to the abuses for want of a better alternative.
Ultimately the only solution to help these creatures is to boycott the industrial food complex thus removing the profit motive, which for me only leaves growing the food myself and I am actively pursuing this end as much as possible in my limited free time and limited growing space.
As an aside, I respect your opinion and your right to hold it and I hope that you can respect, if not my opinion then at least my right to have one as well, without derision.
I fear that comments like-
" I am sorry you have to made up things to support your flawed arguments."
-do not move us any closer to mutual understanding, but rather, further apart.
Just a thought.
Thanks for your response
"which for me only leaves growing the food myself "
There are many options.You can support alternative industries, for example fruits vegetable industry and holistic medicine. Those are good for human health too.
“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
Isaac Newton
if not mine... you should actually read a word or two out of this guy here
cheers
I can't prove it unless you belive in reality and logic:) faith till the end:))
prove it then ...!
like you would prove it to yourself
you can even pick one out randomly... just to be coherent with yourself ...
@ Casapu Radu
..."Science prevails because using it can help you have a home , make a family and procreeate youre species better than faith..."
prove it!
"..All our concepts came from nature ,but because we lack fizical atributes, the ones building bigger,sofisticated things had more children...."
Prove it
"..Man.Logic is based on faith..."
Prove it!
"...We are and always will be the victims of natural selection..."
Prove it!
"...YOU ARE NATURE:))..."
Prove it!
should I keep going???
Casapu Radu
find me a provable sentence....
No, logic was no proven to exist.Just like God was not proven. We use them cause somme in somme circumstances work... 1+1=2 is not a poveble sentence. that every number has 1 befor it,1 after it... I was talking more aboat mathematics it seems, becat this is the language of fizics thus the language in wich we see the world. Once upon a time religion was the language in wich we saw the world. And we used boght of faith.Science prevails because using it can help you have a home , make a family and procreeate youre species better than faith...
logic is a method... a construct... a way of reading information... like language... like mathematics... again...
and it is not truth... it's a way to describe something...
if you don´t have that what do you have... ???
you want to know why I still insist...? cuz you remind me of myself in your age... and I can relate... and I guess that maybe just maybe... I would have the same stand... I would show a little more respect though... in not picking random stuff just ... because...
I know.... come on not you to...
I agree... just sharing a little something about chimps ... not any harm there :)
@Rick Kiriakidis
"Why are you afraid of using the word superior? If we have a advantage over another species then that advantage gives us an edge over that species thus making us superior to it."
you are talking semantics... I say more chances of survival ... cuz in my opinion it's a more accurate definition... don't get me wrong I would use the word superior to simplify things... but then I would have to explain myself all over again... just think words can play tricks on you... very treacherous things words
And another thing... chimpanzees can be cruel... maybe not to slugs...but in group confrontation chimpanzees have been observed to inflict injury's not only to kill but actually so make suffer... like ripping the genitalia, or breaking arms and legs... not only make damage to .. make the other stop ... but more like torture... that demands empathy ... to know that one is inflicting pain...
You're missing the point, a chimp CAN be cruel but the point is to demonstrate that even if its superior to a slug it has no ill intent towards slugs because of it. I used a chimp, I could have used a rat or a bear or a lion or a horse instead of the chimp.
Man.Logic is based on faith,no one prooved it, make you'reself used to it. Faith is all you have just somme in god, somme in logic, soome do not have and die.... You use logic grait remember it is not a proven thing you use it on faith
@ Casapu Radu
"...Man.Logic is based on faith,no one prooved it, make you'reself used to it. Faith is all you have just somme in god, somme in logic, soome do not have and die.... You use logic grait remember it is not a proven thing you use it on faith..."
Your are confusing logic with truth and faith with inference... they are not the same and you sure didn't invented the concepts... so don't rule over them
Faith is to walk on unknown ground and accept the consequences... inference logic... , is to assume that the validity of an argument is maintain by it's logical form not it's content... not equal to truth... truth is an absolute concept... logic is a method... faith just don't need any of the above...
Logic is based on faith? Ok everyone thanks for playing, have a good night an we'll see you again next time!
If you belive you're goal in life is simply to exist then yes, we may be superiour, thow bacteria is superiour to us in this matter, if you think everibody decides his faith by objective means(The people that kill themselves afte a loved one decesed) you sre not superiour because not everybody has the same goal,thus you do not have a criteria to say whom is superiour to whom.Is music superiour to sports? Are eyes superiour to ears? Is beeing a politician superiour to beeing a drugster? answer me these(you should'nt because its obective and hasnt a definitive value)Every animal manipulates it's medium.Protozors were terraforming long before us and I do now consider the to be superiour. Plus in a big way we are the products of the plants, tho I do not consider them to be supperiour. We may control more ,but it's just because we depend on more...
Again the same old subjective argument that no one can prove or disprove, if you dont put in criteria to prove or disprove something your just having the same old faith based useless conversation where you cant disprove Im right about humans being superior and I cant disprove your stance that we are... wait, what is your stance, we aren't superior, we aren't inferior and we aren't equal? Then whats the point here?
"If you believe you're goal in life is simply to exist then yes, we may be superiour"
not just my goal ... Life's goal...
yes I actually draw the line there... not because I want to... but because it is logical and sported by evidence... life does everything in order to sustain itself...
you keep giving specific situations or behaviours... if every Human being was inclined to commit suicide in front of adversity... than we wouldn't be having this conversation...
You have to draw a line somewhere for the sake of the discussion. Or nothing makes sense... and you and I are both wrong... if you don't make a point of reference then motion does not exist... cuz you have to be moving relative to something to actually be moving at all... pain does not make sense in hat argument... but the truth is you will say F%ck the next time you'll burn your hand... and that is an effect right there (for the love ... don't argue with the word you'll say.. just making a point here)
I drive my thought relative to that premise... that life will always move towards sustainability... you have to translate things to information... it's a fact if you look at an apple you can never prove for sure that it exists... but you can make a model... a representation that something is there... no just because your brain is translating information so you understand it... but also because everyone will come to same conclusion... we just happen to call it an apple... saying this if the same as saying we are made out of suff... you have to infer there is actually stuff that makes you... or you're wrong too and there is nothing... absolute nothing...
and I don't agree with that... the rest is semantics and complexity
just occurred to me... let's say we can evolve ourselves trough genetic technology... and totally and completely change ourself into a hybrid species that can change and control DNA sequencing to every possible variation... we will then have created LIFE 2.0... Since the pattern of Life has we know is the adaptation to the environment trough lots of different arrangements with different species... then we would have created a single Species with all of Life's potential... Unified... then it would be fair to assume that Humans were the "God" (creator)... of that species... and if we assume that... we can also assume that it happen already with us... and that nature is our creator... God is the creator of Nature... and were just an upgrade from Nature and Nature is an upgrade of God itself.... and then we just have to invent a all lot of names for everything what I just said implies... in both directions of time... coming again to an infinite regression and an infinite progression at the same time...
I'm seriously considering professional help at this point...
Ignorance is bliss
Don't get all upset... I'm just messing around...
or am I??
:)))
Although I'm having fun here... I have to get out of my a$$ and go to work... cuz all being equal and all... and reality being an illusion ...I still have S[]i7 to do! I guess that's my illusion!
peace
And @Casapu care to comment on what I've said about the "soup of particles" please... I would like an opinion...
peace... and please keep it up on being different ... and not "equal" at all :))
cuz it's in the acceptance of difference that harmony truly lies... or whatever :))
cheers
I'm not nervous Ricardo, I rarely am:D
if we are equal because we are made out of the same stuff... then a house is just a pile of Bricks... no... it is how the elementary parts arrange themselves in a structure that defines the very characteristics of how the parts manifest... it is structure that defines function... and function creates action and reaction... and you have Nature... cuz we all agree that Nature is not a pile of stuff... it is not Still... you can say it is made of elementary parts... but the way those parts are arranged in does matter... and does influence the very "nature" of Nature's system... thus creating Variety... we may not know how it works yet... but we can assume something is definitely there!
If you throw a boomerang and it does not come back... then it is not a boomerang at all... it's a Fu%k!ng STICK!! and a stick is made of the same stuff as a boomerang!!... but it's structure differs from a stick witch enables it to came back... or if you would like to say it the other way around... a Boomerang is a Fu%k!ng STICK... that comes back if you throw it!! Why?? because of it's specific structure!! So DIFFERENCE in structure is what distinguish this tow piles of the same stuff!!
now had up some complexity to that... a Human is not a Chimpanzee... cuz although it is made out of the same basic parts... the structure it is arranged in interacts in a different way... so the tow parts of the same stuff... differ... that is the same as saying Humans differ from chimpanzees... now aptly the same REASONING a little further and you can see that different structures can not only have different ways of interaction they can also have... more ways to interact than others... and then it's all about probabilities... if I have more ways to come out alive of a certain situation or situations... then I have an advantage for survival over structures that don't have has many options... and that is why I think... We have an advantage over all other species ... NOT SUPERIOR ... just a more probable chance of survival....
I can't put it any other way... just dwell on it...
""and that is why I think... We have an advantage over all other species ... NOT SUPERIOR ... just a more probable change of survival.""
Why are you afraid of using the word superior? If we have a advantage over another species then that advantage gives us an edge over that species thus making us superior to it.
Superior seems to be equated to domination and malevolence, with conceit and power when its just a terminology to point out that as a species we can do things better then another to increase our odds of survival, our wellbeing, our comfort level, our interaction with each other, our culture, our understanding, and so many more criteria I could list.
A chimp is superior to a slug but it doesn't have any notion of wanting to dominate or be cruel towards slugs.
Superior does not mean an inherit role of domination and malevolence!
Isn't it fun to have a discution? why does it have to be logical?Like sex with a condom...(for Rick) No oane makes you have a discutio you can do what you think.... Aint life fun?
"Isn't it fun to have a discution? why does it have to be logical?Like sex with a condom...(for Rick) No oane makes you have a discutio you can do what you think.... Aint life fun?"
that's something I totally agree
You failed to understand what I meant, if both sides cant prove anything then the discussion is irrelevant. Its a waste of time to try and prove the existence of god when every argument basically reverts to "having faith". I think at this point I've just realized I've been entrapped into that conversation and its a complete waste of time.
Though I admit, it was enjoyable!
I'm from Romania:)) Ever heard of virtual particles? you do not need infinity for space its like the edge of the planet , you do not have such a thing,like there is nothing north from the north pole, virtual particles and cuantum fizics FTW, eve if you have nothing to be certain of it feels darn good sometimes:) remember there was a time when everyone sayed the earth is flat and it did not make it so(refering to the sky is blue). It depends on the instruments you measure the world with like we needen the telescope to discover the roundness of the planed.You cannot be 100% certain but science is as close as you can get to the truth
dude again seriously... read everything!!!
quote again... :
"..so you need confirmation to prove something not only evidence but confirmation as well... and even then it's not truth it a model a theory until some one proves it wrong or completes it..."
the problem I just refereed of space... is a just another interpretation for Zenos paradox of the arrow... to state that motion is just an illusion... I'm not criticising you... I'm actually agreeing with you... your just to damn nervous to see that...
I know about about virtual particles, and I know all about curled dimensions of space to... both theoretical... And do investigate what I mean with "the space for space" you will like it.
If you start travelling up from the centre of the earth eventually you will run out of earth, and enter space... there is no edge but you can damn well see a frontier... it´s not that!! imagine you make the earth disappear... you're left with the space it was in... so then remove the space the earth was in... you're left with the space where the space the earth was in... was in... this is actually a paradox... it has no resolution... nobody came to a conclusion on the matter... EVER so don't assume you know it.
If we talk about the Universe... then the problem is different.
Not to mention that matter is basically empty space with some residual "stuff"... this kind of argument never ends
And you didn't even taped to what I've said about the significance of our discussion... that I think it's actually something cool out of all this mess
And By the way you just refuted Occam Razor principle... cuz your saying that "everything being equal... you're wrong" :))
To be more accurate ... you should say "everything being equal no one is right" ... cuz every thing is just equal
This is a joke by the way... so don't go all quantum on me... :))
Since mass is energy, everything is equall because it is only one thing , no diversity, only ilusion of diversity helium(2hidrogens(4quarks)) we are one thing, and cannot be anything but equal, we still do not understand each other?
since the conversation is going this way... I've got a question for you... everything is energy... agree... but even energy has to have a space to occupy right?... and giving this... the space has to have a space for space to occupy... to infinity... (I'm using space cuz I have no other word to put it in)
Infinite regressions Like ...is there a creator? don't get us anywhere... who created the creator? and the creator of the creator and so on... believe me I've been there!
we've boiled this down to saying we're just a soup of element particles... just the fact that we've claim it... shows that the combination of a part of that soup in a specific structure can be aware of itself... and sorry if you don't see it... but I find what we just did together from miles and miles apart just AMAZING (assuming that your in the States and I'm actually from Portugal)... a group of random particles communicating with another group of random particles in a sea of random particles... stating that we are aware of our existence...!! It's priceless
But it was you who said ... logic is all we have...
If I have to say What I think I'll say... been there!
This thread should be put on an blog or something, I'd of love to come acriss this tipe of stuff on the net:D
You are write I do not belive in truth and I hate Descartes for separating mind and body to make existance certain:)) If I have to say wat i feel, i love girls,chocolate,fish(not eating them but watching them like a autist person) If i have to say what I think, I think I do not know what is truth, I do not know thus what is good or bad, usefull or not, and I think we have these concepts from the time we belived in divine justice and things like that... Deh keeping these artifacts makes living easier... I know because I remember the time when I thinked the same and man it was sweet, when you are the center of the universe:x... NOT A LONG TIME AGO BECAUSE i'M ONLY 19xD
what if I say he sky is blue... how can I be sure... what if you are colour blinded... how can you be sure that the sky is blue??
I can explain to you that light comes in different frequencies... and that the sky is blue cuz it reflects a 450 nm wavelength of light that differs from other frequency's of light ... then you measure it... and you buddy's measure it... and everyone measures it... and they say damn... he is right!... although you don´t actually see that the sky is blue every one encounters the same pattern over and over again... so everybody amuses that there is actually something there... that's how science works... you don't even have to call it the same name... the problem here is semantics... I find that logic
I know what you're saying belive me... I do... but if you dwell on it like you say... then we have nothing
I agree with the premise, but only 3 minutes in and the science facts are loose. Regarding lifespan of vertebrates (not to mention the vague description of animals that life life "at our pace" or whatever he said - Tuatuaras - 200 years? Some experts - apparently a minority - believe this. Bowhead Whales? controversial science not correlated by other methods have claimed this possibility. Greenland Shark? No one knows, but a solitary scientific paper makes the claim that they could theoretically live to be 200. This glossing over and vague-ifying of facts doesn't give me hope for the veracity of the whole doc.
probably one of the best comment threads i have come across, great conversation all :) so thx for that!
Even equality, and absolute scepticism are human conceptions... every thing you just wrote proves your self wrong... cuz to take your point of view nothing is real... and nothing can be proven... since everything we know or say are constructs of the human mind you can never have a definition of nothing... when you prove something you don't prove it because A+B=C ... you prove it by making sure that every one sees A+B=C... so you need confirmation to prove something not only evidence but confirmation as well... and even then it's not truth it a model a theory until some one proves it wrong or completes it.
Let me try this way then:
If you look into a group of monkeys living in the same group you see a lot of NATURES ingenuity... language social interaction, nurture, using of tools... a lot of some pretty complex and useful things... if you pick up a group of people (and I'm talking potential) you find all sorts of different abilities musicians, engineers, medics, teachers, agricultures, carpenters... our brain is more flexible to attend to the environments demands... I never said we control our environment, I share the same opinion on that... we... don't but we have a lot more tools to confront it... a chimpanzee it's a chimpanzee, I'm not trying to say he is inferior... he just does not have our coping abilitys... that does not mean that one single event does not wipes us out of the face of the earth... if you can go up down and side ways you have a lot more options than going strait (I find that obvious).
the fact that you pointed out those examples helps me with my argument... the variety of behaviour you see in Humans is an advantage... cuz even though a certain trade or behaviour (whatever) can be a disadvantage in a certain situation it can be an advantage in other... A Man is not superior to a chimpanzee.. I agree... my statment is the Human Race has more resources to survive... than chimpanzees... that doe not mean we will... Imagine ther a ******* disaster and the single survival is a chimpanzee siring in a nuclear bunker while the human race is waiting for Chris to return in Jerusalem ... I bet you that chimpanzee would have a word or tow to say to me... :))
And note that a single group of chimpanzees has more genetic variety than all The Human race put together... . And I always say potential cuz it can also trick us into self destruction... we have to wait and see... I'm not saying it is so, I'm not saying I'm right ... I'm discussing it!! that's all
A lot of people die for"Love" which i could also do for one person... This is whi I say that inteligence not necesarely gives us advantages, because it made us think relative:)) f"ck I;m going to do somme integrals it's easier
Well we were talking about superiority when you came in, and I thought you saied that our imagination makes us superiour wich is not the case... I do not know what you mean by advantages. Youre advantage can be my dissadvantage since we could have set different goals in life... I say this because I know a guy that would give his life for "God" so when you say advantage you have the premise that to live is the goal, wich is ok but we have riched a strange time and can choose between strange things in life...
Equal is the standard model:)) you do not need to prove it,you have to proove otherwise, this is appliable in the lack of absolute criteria,purpose,value... wich was lost along with god.If you understand how the ideea of god got into our minds is loggical that He does not exist, in can;t be debateble because absence of evidance is not evidance of absence but the odds so far are againts the subject so it is far better to belive He was our hope ,like Zeus,a people loving and caring god,and not our creator. I mean we have no evidence he is or he is not but we can be certain we made him up ,along whit concepts like superior, beauty,perfect,goal...
Without an absolute criteria you cannot say a thing is more or less superiour thus equal is all you have if you do not like it sorry but it is can't be otherwise, logic is all we have do not kill it please
It's like the debating if the earth is a superiour planet to others in the universe, logically it is equal since it was made by the same process, if you do not understand this I am sorry but it is useless for me to keep debating you... I can live my life even thow I think everything is equal,I just listen to my instincts wich do not care if things are equall,or does it, since all the atoms appear to share the same faith, even if it is me and i live 1000 years eve if it in a bug that live 4 days
We are and always will be the victims of natural selection,that we can apparently change the paradigm and let's say tommarow make a new law kill the humans that read Hitler's "Mienen Kampf"(not the cruel way but the nice long way,like the way we did with somme tribes,like deminishing wrights...) is just a way in wich nature expresses it's self,I mean selfishness, inteligence, imagination are all treaghts with wich nature has "blessed" us.You never choose but it is an ilusin.You never choose to eat, you're body does, parts of the brain that controlles instinct(hippocampus and hippotalamus?). We can't choose a darn thing, love is natures drug,and is administrated in certain conditions. And even the environment wich you "like" is determinated by nature. What potential to escape? YOU ARE NATURE:)) And bacteria uses us exactly the way we use a house and a car, somme eve change us if the do not like us. There are parasites that do exactly all the thin gs you say we do but with other creatures.You put the problem of time,a mosquito cand change hosts like you change you're croops.We did not discover fire,we understood fire(at different limits) other insects uset it before us.. I do not understand do you want to see insects using fire? maybe if there is a pressure on them like it was on on they will... You clearly think you control you're life and nature is no longer you're owner. If you like a thing it's because nature, if you disslike the same. That we are fizzicaly different,and cand manipulate the world in different ways that other creatures i understand but why are we supposed to be supperyour when we were all made by the same process?
Dude seriously!! just read the posts and calm down!
I never said we´re outside nature... I even wrote we are nature... we can´t escape it... your drifting away...!!! everything we've done and will do will be the expression of nature... but nature is a self improving system... I said and I quote :
"our own evolution gave us the tools to skip that"
not NATURE... the process of NATURAL SELECTION other species go through to adapt to a CERTAIN SITUATION...
I'm not saying we're above nature... more... nobody did... nobody is saying Humans are outside of nature... all I'm saying (and read carefully this time) is we have more advantages cuz we're more versatile... we have more options... not against freaking nature... DAH... but vs other species. And again ADVANTAGES ... not SUPERIORITY... you are misunderstanding me from the start... and I just started to point out that they didn't talk about Human ability to imagine and how that is a powerful tool for problem solving.
And you think our mathematics and imagination was created in an instant?or simply millions of years working? Try imaginating a thing you haven't got the concept of... All our concepts came from nature ,but because we lack fizical atributes, the ones building bigger,sofisticated things had more children.... Ps: Dancing,fighting,art,cloughting,we got these from nature aka other animals and stuff, I hate saiyng nature because we are a part of nature not a part beside nature! Thanks Alice Jhon for the beautifully logical posts:D Every creature is brought up by nature in nature and dies in nature. Nature has no favourites thus all things are equall even thow we have preferances. Instincts are driving ma, we never controled nature, it's an ilusion, hunger ,love, hate... are the mecanisms that drive us and were made by nature so haw can you conquere a thing that made you think the way you think?
So true. Humans are part of reality as much as any other creature. Thinking humans are separate from nature and can "decide" to break free is so foolish.
"And you think our mathematics and imagination was created in am instant?or simply millions of years working?"
Again... no... try and actually read what other people write before you go all bananas... if we consider that point of view then you go to a regression to the beginning of life and there is no point to the discussion... The only thing I'm saying is Humans have the POTENTIAL to not be victims of natural selection... and all our trades are the result of millions of years of evolution... that is obvious... but we don't need another million years to cope with deceases, or hunger, or cold, or any of those things... our own evolution gave us the tools to skip that... if I'm cold I kill a bear and take it's fur, or I make a freaking sweater, or I improve my shelter... We discovered fire for God sakes... and control it... We don't have to under go the millions of years through the process of natural selection to adapt to a situation... in the form that we do we're unique... we have advantage... we have more choices... that does not mean one single thing can't extinguish Human beings over night, and other species survive... That's why I don't agree with the word SUPERIOR... of course we're part of nature... and depend on the ecosystem to survive... that's not my point!!
If we manage to control genetic manipulation to it's fullest then this discussion will be over...
Well... I've been reflecting on this doc... and even though it is absolutely brilliant, there are some important things they don't mention... Adaptability, and abstraction (imagination)... that for me are the top quality's of human beings... one simple example is this..
(Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran pointed this out when talking about mirror neurons)
A Polar Bear evolved so it could survive artic temperatures by developing specialized fur to maintain temperature... a human being simply kills the bear and uses the bear's fur to do the same... and in that instance skips a few millions years of evolution... a trick he then can pass to his peers via culture both vertically (generation to generation) or horizontally (living peers)...
another example... the simple fact of recognising that "I'm hungry today, for sure I'll be hungry tomorrow" means I don't have to hunt every time I'm hungry... I can save some... or store some so it doesn't go to waste. I can even create my own source of food, so I don't have to hunt at all... the capacity to predict and plan for the future is one of our most valuable weapons for survival. And has much as other species can be superior in some ways... better senses... better physical qualities... so on... the fact we can do this is really an advantage... and we're omnivorous so there is a lot we can survive on...
another thing they refer during the doc is the inherited human trade for destruction.... and self-destruction... and all kinds of human defects and limitations ... what they don't mention is what they are doing... the capacity to identify those behaviours "self-criticism" and the power to act on them... If any other species encounters a difficulty it has to evolve or it goes extinct... we are more versatile in that manner... we can predict it and change it. I'm not saying we're not bounded by he same principle, but we're sure more adaptable then most. Whether it's a plague or a natural disaster, or self-destructive behaviour... we have the means to change it, prepare for it or simply avoid it. Not saying we will but we have more chances than any other species.
If we can pass the test of time time or not to be a successfully spices ... is yet to be answered...
it's true we can simply vanish from the face of the earth in a single act of stupidity... but on the other hand we have the potential to create our own course of evolution.... what I'm trying to say is... I don't think humans are superior to any other life form.. but we ave the POTENTIAL for defying mortality itself... it's not that we're intelligent, or conscious... or even self aware (that to of course)... but it's the KIND of intelligence we possess that gives us the edge.
cheers
Animals can plan things. They have adaptability, and abstraction too. How do bees get the structure of their hives? And many animals store food for winters.
It's a common thing that companion animals anticipate their masters returning from work. There were also a story that a domestic chimpanzee can anticipate his/her own birthday.
If we do not know much about some groups (humans or non-humans), the best thing to do is not judging them so fast.
Bees don't get the structure of their hive by abstraction and planning...it is done by the process of trail and error witch has engraved, through evolution, in their DNA the most efficient hive structure...this is the same way genetic algorithms work in Artificial Intelligence.
"it is done by the process of trail and error witch has engraved, through evolution"
LOL, Humans do not get our abstraction and planning from the evolution in your opinions? We do not do things that are genetic hard-wired?
Are you suggesting that bees build those structures based on creativity reasoning and imagination… ?? or simply millions of years working… if something happens do they change their approach…?? no they keep doing the same damn thing over and over… they are amazing constructors for sure… but they don’t have the type of versatility a humans do…we’re not discussing nature’s ability to evolve and adapt… cuz that’s a fact observable in all living forms…
Yes domestic animals do have the capability of predicting when their owners are returning… not only that, thay can predict the moment when the owner makes the decision of going home… I do know the work of Rupert Sheldrake… better than you apparently… what does that have to do with what I’m saying???
If you read my post in the end I say… it’s not that we’re intelligent, cuz no doubt many other species are… it’s the KIND of intelligence we have ….
We can both own cars, but if mine is faster, more economic, more durable and so one, mine is more advantageous than yours… I don’t say superior cuz if something happens that affects my car and not yours, then mine is useless…. But the probability of that happening I’s lower than the other way around…
Animals do store food… some even have special anatomical structures to do so… so do we… fat cells… they serve to store energy for later consumption…. But they don’t use reason to do so…. They rely on their genetic potential to do so… we don’t … our specific genetic trades enable us not only to mimic what other’s develop over millions of years in a matter of minutes hours days, or a few hears, we can come up with even better methods on our own.
I’m talking POTENTIAL… don’t go cherry picking animal trades to serve your point like that… it’s kinda lame
Another thing I what to point out is EMPATHY… empathy is the ability to see through another person point of view… example: if this hurts me… hit hurts him to… so lack of empathy does not mean cruelty… you actually need empathy to be cruel… you need empathy to know your inflicting pain in another person… a psychopath does thinks for it’s own advantage… it can mean giving a hug if he needs to… or stabbing a guy in the chest if he needs to… without a care in the world… they don’t go around stabbing people cuz psychopathy is not stupidity, they understand that stabbing someone does have some serious consequences for him… but they couldn’t care less for the pain they are inflicting.
That comment is not a criticism to you. It was some thoughts on the topic you mentioned. Yes, humans have potentials, and I think this is also what the last sentence of the film implies.
I agree with your post, and it seems man has an attribute that may be his/her undoing…empathy. Entitlements, here in the U.S. anyway, are allowing the genetically inferior to reproduce without concern while only the genetically best are sent off to war where they are killed or permanently damaged either physically or mentally. This selective process has started to put a real strain on the economic health of this nation. Man’s empathetic nature has taken the drug addict (alcohol included) from being a scourge to the hapless victim of a ‘disease’ where hundreds of millions each year are spent to minimize the crime rate of this phenomenon and not for correcting the thought process that encourages it.
I don’t see man as being superior…he has the potential to be but doesn’t display the attributes of superiority. I see man’s drive to increase his standard of living as a symptom of his ‘addictive personality disorder’. Men who make great strides in the advancement of our global culture are generally workaholics; and much of the rest of society (U.S.) have less productive addictions to food, alcohol, drugs, sex, porn, internet and procreation.
I may be wrong, but I see man as a blight that will be a game changer in the future evolution of the surviving species on this planet. Temperatures are rising, the air, water and soil is being polluted at an unprecedented rate and the food supply is being genetically altered permanently. I see us as the next ‘extinction event’ that will altar the future of life on this planet.
Overall, "superior" is an opinion if it is outside of any context. We can be superior in certain aspects, but we will also be inferior in others. If you say "overall" then you need to list the traits and prove why they are the most important. The film does argue overall traits, btw, so you got that wrong. Watch the part where the English looking guy argues with a bear. They use their overall traits.
People who try to prove an overall superiority (opinion) as truth are trying to solve their cognitive dissonance. It's the same as Columbus deciding that Native Americans were evil, which was a change he made upon realizing they had lots of gold he could profit from.
It is solid fact found in international surveys that compassion to animals reflects compassion to humans. There is no clear cut between us. It's like someone saying "I robbed 10 gas stations, but trust me, I won't rob your coffee shop". My point is that if someone is on a quest to prove animal inferiority, they will treat humans in a similar manner. In some places, veterinarians report signs of pet abuse to agencies that protect women from abusive husbands. It is such an accurate giveaway. If he abused his pet, he is likely to abuse his wife. More compassion for animals means more compassion for humans. This can be provided to you in numbers.
If you want to continue to try to prove your opinion as fact, you are on average revealing that you have a smaller amount of compassion for other people and are not as fit for society.
Man...you are putting equal signs everywhere and think it is somehow logically justified.
Related to what you said about compassion, people as a howl had always treated animals as their moral inferior(and that is justified just for the simple fact your species survival=your survival is more important than that of any other animal) and that says very little about inter-human compassion(you right there is a more pathological side to mistreating animals, but those are exceptions and a sign o mental disease).
What do you think about animal rights activists bombing animals test labs, is that a form of compassion?...or investing money in animal shelters when there is so much human suffering?
Man.. be scientific, Hindu monks are animal rights activists. Do not generalize people by stereotypes. Understand things by scientific methods. There were multiple surveys from English-Speaking nations, about half animal rights people oppose direct action. The link between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence is well established. There are lots of information about scientific research methods online.
You really need to learn some science. If scientific surveys find correlations, it means there is a general trend in the population that people are nicer to animals are nicer to humans.
Whatever you have mentioned are individual cases, they are not representative. I can easily provide you with much more cases that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to people. Many serial killers are like that.
Hindus are not vegetarians when it comes to survival...and don't praise them to much, in Hindu society there is a lot o violence and subjugation in the form of the cast system.
Half is not a good figure...it is similar to saying half of the Muslim population is against terrorism...but what about the other half?
You are thinking only of the specific case of animal cruelty, and I agree with you there...but you can't generalize that compassion for animals equals compassion for humans in the same way you can't generalize that a lack of compassion for animals equals a lack of compassion for humans, this are related to that person moral framework and if they were to be true we wouldn't be alive today. I see compassion for animals only as a byproduct of the human ability to empathize with each other inside their own specie...and I don't deny the scientific facts and the value of other animals, we are all interdependent...but all this discussions are from a subjective and moral perspective and most here takes it as scientific fact the statement that animals are equal from a moral point of view.
Unless you are willing to say that a rat life is equally important or more important than that of a human life(are you not going to sacrifice the life of a rat to save that of a human?...this is the true test of compassion for animal right activists) then you are still living with the assumption that humans are superior.
"Hindus are not vegetarians when it comes to survival" Where did you get this?
What you said just proved the compassion link. You are not only biased against animals, you are biased against other human groups . US citizen on average eat 20-30 times meat than Indians. And you want to criticize Indians for being violent?
The USA does not have a cast system? Did you know the USA has highest percentage of prisoner on the planet?
Ignorant people are so pathetic
Do a little search on internet about Hindus, their views on diet related to survival and their cast system.
I don't praise western society and any society for everything you can say because there will never exist a perfect society...and morality is relevant to the culture of that society.
I know that studies can be easily interpreted and are never 100% proof...but I'll do a study on that considering you called me ignorant :)
All the best you perfect reasoning machine :)
It is because many people are like you, not only biased against animals but also biased against other human groups. That is why we need to address the biases. Lies do not become more true when more people say it.
Cultures are not static, they are evolving.
I did not say "compassion for animals equals compassion for humans" If you do not understand what does general mean go to study statistics
"you can't generalize that compassion for animals equals compassion for humans in the same way you can't generalize that a lack of compassion for animals equals a lack of compassion for humans, this are related to that person moral framework"
It doesn't equal, but there is a trend. E.g. on a scale of 1 to 10:
John likes animals 1 and likes humans 3
Betty likes animals 4 and likes humans 6
Rose likes animals 6 and likes humans 10
This is the type of general trend found in worldwide surveys. It's been done and the general trend is there in every degree.
"(are you not going to sacrifice the life of a rat to save that of a human?...this is the true test of compassion for animal right activists) then you are still living with the assumption that humans are superior."
Not really a good test. I would kill 100 rats to save my life, but I would understand it's because of my bias towards myself. It's the same as me choosing my favorite ice cream at a shop. I don't think it is the "superior ice cream" and anyone who chooses any other flavor is wrong. I just get it because I know I like it.
I did not put equal signs everywhere. I mentioned what seems to be a trend of relativity. I also mentioned that more complex species tend to go extinct sooner than less complex species. That is a scientific fact. Watch 1:01:33 or read about David Raup and extinction rates.
"You are right and the sooner people learn this the better. By your own measure, man is superior to the t-rex as it would need man to live."
Superior at survival - yes, you are 100% correct. Overall superior is an opinion though, because how could we objectively define it? There could be a suicidal Jurassic Park fan that views all t-rex traits as superior and thinks not surviving makes it even cooler. We couldn't really argue. Yes he would be considered crazy by most of society, but opinions are opinions. You always have to put opinions in a context to make a fact. Example:
Black is the best color/shade - false
Black is the best color/shade to become hot in the sun - true
Although black may have a million great uses for me, I can't say it's overall superior somehow.
"people as a howl had always treated animals as their moral inferior(and that is justified just for the simple fact your species survival=your survival is more important than that of any other animal) "
Yes, that is true. As long as you understand we like humans because we are human, I have no problem with what you said. Species are very genocentric and need to be to survive. A guy who goes with an orangutan for a wife instead of a woman will not be very successful at reproduction. It's only when a human thinks it is superior in any context that it is incorrect.
"you right there is a more pathological side to mistreating animals, but those are exceptions and a sign o mental disease)."
Here is the interesting part: Studies show a clear connection between compassion to animals and compassion to humans. For example; people who care a bit less about animals also tend to care a bit less about other people. People who torture animals are also likely to torture humans (I think these are the extremes you are referencing). It's not just the extreme cases that count. Here's something interesting one worldwide study found: People who care less about animal rights also care less about human disadvantaged groups, like homosexuals and minorities.
Most animal rights supporters are non-violent. A few bad apples spoil the bunch by fighting fire with fire, which does not put them in the moral high ground and undermines their cause.
What this documentary does is take one argument and debunks it one at a time using multiple species, its not ONE trait that makes us superior, its the collection of ALL those traits TOGETHER that make us superior.
Well said, Rick.
@filmbo and others
Animals can take care of themselves. They do not need to argue with humans, not to mention we wouldn't understand them.
Humans can take care of themselves too, that's why we don't stand around debating cows, not to mention they wouldn't understand us.
"Is not the very fact that this film was made and that we are having this discourse evidence that you and I and the filmaker all consider man to be superior?"
No. It is important for a human film maker to make a film teaching humans that superiority is an opinion so they do not become overconfident in religious beliefs of inherent superiority and end up hurting themselves. Likewise, a parent telling a teenager to buckle his seatbelt when he drives is not proving his invincibility, it's trying to prevent him from killing himself by thinking he's an invincible teenager and doesn't need a seatbelt.
"Think about it. If we are all equal then no opinion carries any more weight than any other."
Correct. Life forms are equal in the sense that none is inherently more special. Just like people can have favorite colors, but there is no inherently superior color. I think it is important for humans to recognize this reality so they do not make dangerous mistakes.
This again falls into the argument of which is the better existence, to exist as a human or exist as an ape for example, each has its own right to exist, not being able to transform into a monkey we cannot say our existence is superior.
BUT, if we're talking about superiority, we can determine which is the better way of using resources, the better way of communicating (though we dont know how most species do communicate we can observe HOW they communicate), the better way of building a shelter, etc. In MOST categories humans ARE superior in those respective traits, thus as a painter can be more skilled to another painter, making him the superior painter, so can we classify species.
If we were to encounter an alien civilization that was millions of years more advanced then us, they would be superior to us in many aspects, just like we are superior to other life forms on the planet.
You see things supperiour because you have a set of goals you consider unmutable and absolute wich is not the case, is in not a goal in life to live... you can,and somme,tho not me really do other stuff like genocide for religion(superiority complex) or commit suicide for diverse reasons
You argue about human subjectivity and imperfection from a subjective and imperfect human point of view...I guess you forgot that like everyone else here you are only human.
I can only say that I'm overwhelmed by the lack of modesty in you statements(maybe not only yours) :)...but I guess you managed to figure out everything about humans, morality, aliens, extinction, technology, environmental problems and overall reality :)...everything besides understanding cows :D
That is truly funny.
Warren has it ALL figured out except how to speak "cow".
If you believe that humans and other animals are equal then why don't you judge them by the same standard?...This double standard is the best similarity between animal rights activists and religious fundamentalists.
You don't communicate with animals in the same way you don't communicate with a rock...If animals were to have higher consciousness they could communicate it somehow considering the fact every animal interacts with its environment and shares one or more senses that humans have(in the same way a chimpanzee could learn "sign language", but considering the "deepness"" of the discussions you shouldn't put your hopes up :) ).
To put it differently I assume you aren't denying that a more advance alien race could communicate with the human race...but you may have a different opinion then me about alien life :)
An impudent and patronizing propaganda peice on just how worthless human beings are, according to the author.
It is so anti-human and pro-animal that I am surprised as to why more birds fish and insects haven't left comments applauding the peice.
Oh that's right, the animals do not have computers to make commentary... or cameras to make such films... or for that matter a written language to convey such thought.
You have probably guessed by now that as a human being I consider myself to be superior to the animals and that I make no apology for it. If there are any animals out there who disagree with me. Please reply to this comment or send me an email and we can discuss it like two rational ...er ...um
On second thought, that might not work.
I know! Tell the elephant at the start of this peice and he will paint me some pictures of how you feel about my superiority complex and we can go from there.
In the mean time....NEXT!!!
It's only natural to belive you are superiour in the world,like the belief that the sun goes around the earth, you need tools to understand semantics, tools wich seemingly you do not poses.The video shows that non of the animals ar superiour and thus non is worthless,never saied that man is worthles, but people like you watch documentaries and see only what they want... nice existance..
As long as there is no superiour purpose there is no superiour beeing or act, you choose them by personal criteria
Dear Casapu Radu,
To be fair, we all have much evidence to suggest that man is situated higher up, hence superior to the animals.
Your mention of "semantics" is relevant in the sense that I don't consider the superiority of man to be an issue of right or wrong but rather superior or inferior.
A good determinant of that is to look at your dinner plate. If you are eating it then by definition of that victory you are superior.
(In the end the bacteria are truly superior and they will eat us all.)
Forgive me if I have offended you somehow as this was not my intent. I am simply sharing my opinion but you are making generalizations and I am sensing some animosity.
"If you are eating it then by definition of that victory you are superior."
As the film states: A prey species typically has at least 10 times the bio-mass of the predator species.
@ Rick
Correct, but I do not think you are reaching deeply. We are superior to other life forms in many contexts: Long distance running, complexity, intelligence, and more. There is no such thing as an out of context superiority though -- an inherent superiority that means we are overall more valuable than everything else.
A shark has an astoundingly incredible sense of smell, does not need technology, can swim quickly, and more. So why aren't sharks overall superior? Why aren't shark traits used as the standards of success? Well, because those are just shark traits and they are not required for the SURVIVAL of all species. We survive just fine without shark traits. Humans have good traits as well, as mentioned earlier. So why shouldn't human traits be the standard? Well, because they are not necessary for SURVIVAL. Other species do fantastically without human traits. In fact, many have survived longer, and are predicted to continue to. Your problem is that you equate technology, etc. as superiority. It is an assumption and it has been proven false.
"If we were to encounter an alien civilization that was millions of years more advanced then us, they would be superior to us in many aspects"
I think you mean technologically advanced in a similar direction the Western world is advancing in. To "advance" simply means to move forward and it does not automatically mean hi-tech. The native Tasmanians advanced by abandoning more complex spear technology, which was an energy saving move since they did not need it. A very hi-tech alien civilization would be superior to us in many ways, but it would also be weaker in many ways. E.g. it's a basic scientific fact that increased complexity of a system = increased fragility. This is backed up by the fact that complex vertebrate animals go extinct faster than less complex invertebrates.
No, I dont equate technology as superiority, but I do consider it as aid to prove superiority, a shark might not NEED technology, but that is not the point of superiority, if it COULD use technology to its advantage it WOULD, for example, if the shark could build a device that would flock fish to it, it would do so, but it cant, sure you can say it might not NEED to, but if you COuld Build such a device and plant it somewhere, my bet would be the shark would STAY right next to it. The fact that humans can build things to their advantage is another argument to prove we are superior in our resourcefulness to the shark.
Your second point:
If an alien race could supposedly communicate telepathically through vast distances without the need of technology, that would make their way of communication superior to ours, its not related to technology at all, its just a trait they would have that is superior to ours, they would be superior in communication to us, suppose they had 4 arms and had rock hard bodies, they would be physically superior to us. Just like many species on earth are superior physically to us, in that respect we ARE the inferior, but Im talking about OVERALL as a species, we are superior because we can use technology, we can understand mathematics, we can use our imagination, etc. better and more skillfully then other species on the planet!
VALUE is a complete other debate to superiority.
false logic.
when animals communicate with one another, do you understand them?
you also bring up the ability to make films and cameras and such to prove your point. this is ok if your perspective is the only one that matters. but alas, not everyone will agree that your perspective matters at all, human or animal. thats a decision you make on your own.
are we not animals ourselves? don't forget, for every "pro" you state about the superiotity of humans, there are just as many "cons" (flaws). its all about perspective and it is quite human to think you are better than others, whether fellow human or animal.
the word superior is about perspective. and if i have to read one more comment about how everything is propaganda lol oh my....NEXT!!!
If you don't understand animals then how do you know they communicate? You first have to know for sure that animals have a perspective to say that there can be a different animal perspective that could matter else your working on imagination alone.
We are animals but species by definition are different one from another...the "pros" and "cons" you mention are your opinions according to your value system but and unless you are willing to die so another animal from another species could live you are still considering yourself more worldly/valuable/superior than those animals.
Whenever you see only a single point of view presented on o subject so polarized you have to be sure that some distortion is at hand...but anyway it is hard to put into worlds the "subtleties" of propaganda in this film, my only advice is to try to analyze it with a clear mind and in perspective.
Dear LIVEFROMLIMBO,
Now... you realize that when Thumper and Bambi were out in the forest growing up together and talking 'baby talk' ...that wasn't real, right?
Nemo's father never went to find him in Australia and lions don't actually sing and dance. ;) Just kidding, but seriously...
If the animals are all equal, why can't they just take care of themselves? Is not the very fact that this film was made and that we are having this discourse evidence that you and I and the filmaker all consider man to be superior?
Think about it. If we are all equal then no opinion carries any more weight than any other. So how and why does it become man's responsibility to change his opinion. How and why would it even matter.
Unless man is, in fact, superior then it just doesn't matter.
i appreciate the light hearted response and see what you mean. looking at it from another perspective, with a longer time scale perhaps, it can be seen that other species like virus and bacteria would be far more superior. when all the humans are gone, the earth will probably be still here and the cycle should start again (if you believe in evolution). all i really refer to is the hubris common in human civilization. we can conquer nature for the moment, but like i mentioned above, it really depends on the time scale, hence in the short term yes we are superior but in the long run maybe not so much. just a thought.
Thanks for your kindness. I read the comment I wrote after posting it and I was afraid that I might have been offensive when I was going for funny.
You are right as far as I can see it in that ultimately the bacteria will eat us all. I made the same comment to someone else on this thread earlier and I still believe it.
Its easy to compare ONE trait to another species and say lets use THAT trait as a barometer for superiority, in your example of viruses and bacteria you only figure longevity into the equation, where is all the other traits? Just because we "might" be extinct in a millinia does not mean we are inferior as a species, only that our species is gone. Just like probably a T-Rex, if it were alive today, would be superior to a donkey if we were to compare them in every trait possible! Just because a species is gone does not mean its not superior as a species to another.
You are using a hand full of traits as a barometer for superiority. Length of survival arguments and others are just your own medicine being fed back to you. Finally you say that it doesn't make sense. That has been the entire argument thus far.
Your argument about a shark benefiting from human technology is completely asinine. Any species would benefit from help from another species. If I gave you $1000, it would help you, so does that mean I'm superior? If sharks use their hunting skills to fish for us, which would be helpful, are they superior? No.
A t-rex alive today would need intense human protection to survive. They would require an extremely large amount of meat, which likely would require a large wildlife park full of prey, or at least a factory farm to produce meat for it. Even with large-scale human babying to its needs, modern viruses and bacteria would ravage its body. A donkey, on the other hand, would be fine on its own.
The overall picture seems to be relative, as mentioned earlier. The more complex life forms are around for a shorter time, the less complex are around for more time. Larger life forms are more fragile in that they require more food and space, but they are in turn better at defending themselves in regular life. T-rex was big and strong, but could not survive after the meteor. Rodents were small and weak, but could survive the meteor and are still around.
If you think there is nothing stopping humans from living millions more years, you do not know statistics and have ignored the ones I told you. More complex life goes extinct faster than simple life. This fact comes from living and fossil evidence.
"A t-rex alive today would need intense human protection to survive. They would require an extremely large amount of meat, which likely would require a large wildlife park full of prey, or at least a factory farm to produce meat for it. Even with large-scale human babying to its needs, modern viruses and bacteria would ravage its body."
You are right and the sooner people learn this the better. By your own measure, man is superior to the t-rex as it would need man to live.
And, acknowledging the animals' inferiority doesn't equate to cruelty toward the same animals.
I love my dog, Blu, with all my heart but I don't want him doing my taxes.
Rick's shark analogy was spot on. If a shark had the capacity to farm fish it would stop hunting as a means of self preservation. The reason you don't see shark operated fish farms is that the sharks are incapable of creating them. So, they travel the more demanding path of hunting them.
Superiority, like virtually everything else on this planet seeks the path of least resistance. We create to make our lives less demanding. Where this type of creativity is available to animals it is used.
Whales circle at great depths and then emit a cirle of bubbles that float to the top as they follow in a coordinated effort to catch their prey. The reason they go to all this trouble is they are too inferior to find a better way. When they do find a better way they will ascend to that better way and start using that new method.
If you are an evolutionist then we all started from the same pool of primordial sludge with all the same oportunities and Mankind rose to the top. If you are a creationist then God gave us dominion over all the animals and we started at the top from the word go. Either way we are at the top.
Is dog the only animal species on the planet? What about cattle? What about lab rats? Rats are genetically more similar to human than dogs, so they are mentally and physically more similar to us. Does your ideology of domination help you respect the autonomy of other lives too? How do you know they like your domination? By assuming?
Lets put a lab rat into the whitehouse in 2012. The slogan can be...
"They are genetically more similar to humans than dogs."
(I can just hear the chanting now; I can see the t-shirts.)
You are trying to apply a subjective scale of right or wrong to observable fact. Humans rule the world. Humans are superior.
How the animals feel about that fact doesn't play into the equation.
Who knows, maybe the animals will rapidly advance, get organized, get weaponized and stage a revolt.
Until then, put that pen down, Blu, you are not doing my taxes!
Its easy to dismiss every argument and say its subjective!
How about this, lets stop proving humans are superior and let them prove to us that we aren't and with every argument they throw at us we'll just say their argument is subjective.
Let's waste our time watching this documentary that does the same thing too.
Okay, So if an advanced race of aliens landed on the planet and said take me to your leader...
Would we take them to see the lab rats?
I think that humans are the superior species on the planet and have yet to see any evidence to suggest, let alone prove, otherwise.
(how's that Rick?)
"Humans rule the world. Humans are superior." This is your assumption, it is not a scientific facts.
Bacteria and parasites are killing humans on daily basis, and they have 'ruled' the world for a very long time. They don't event need a Whitehouse (government) to achieve this.
And it is also a scientific fact that humans and non-human animals have inherited hard-wired compassion towards each others.
It is also people's choice to be kind to animals. Those people also pay taxes. The nation is not only yours.
Ignorant people are so pathetic.
The simple fact that you are here attacking me, and mankind in general, stands as evidence that somewhere inside you, you believe that mankind is the superior species on this planet.
Maybe I am wrong. Perhaps you are writing strongly worded emails to the bacteria as well since, as you said "they have 'ruled' the world for a very long time."
The problem is that you seem to equate your superiority to the animals with cruelty toward the same and that is a fallacy. Just because we are superior it does not mean that we are cruel.
Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that all earthlings from the simplest bacteria all the way up to the most complex human are completely equal. Further you beleive that care and compassion for all of these creatures is the highest of all virtues.
However the very fact of your existence refutes these beliefs. If you were to live to these virtues you would be unable to bathe, unable to eat. You couldn't wash your clothes or sleep in your own bed or even walk about on the surface of the planet without upsetting if not destroying countless numbers of these fellow comrades. If the bacteria are equal then like each of us your entire life is a raging torrent of careless cruelty.
Finally, as human beings, in the absence of something meaningful, or at least intelligent, to offer, we simply sling insults at the person with whom we disagree. I am sorry you feel the need to resort to this unfortunate tactic and I wish you had more to offer.
C'est la vie
I was commenting ignorant people in general. Please do not be self conscious and think I was referring you.
I am not saying all animals are equal just like I do not think you are equal to any of the serial killers. What I am concerning is the discrimination.
Domination attitude (Humans are given domination over nature) has lead to large scale of animal exploitations in meat industries and in animal testings (many tested animals are dogs).
Some numbers of global annual animal exploitations :
Food - about 56 billion animals were killed, US data suggest about half of animals are conscious when they are killed. This is equivalent to 10,000 holocausts. Humans close relatives, great apes, barely eat meat.
Animal testing - about 100 million animals were tested and killed. Don't know much about animal testing? Search it online.
The numbers are increasing. The superiority is used to justify the animal murders and environmental destruction.
It is also a scientific fact that those societies believe human superiority to a lesser degree kill lesser animals for food and animal testing per capita. A society can not claim it is civil when large amount of exploitations of animals exist, non-human animals are our evolutionary cousins.
"most complex human"?
This is also not scientific. How did you measure the complexity? Some life forms have more complex DNA than humans. Some animals have larger body size and brain size than humans. And in the end of the day all life forms are formed from limited types of atoms. Who is more complex than who?
"Further you believe that care and compassion for all of these creatures is the highest of all virtues. "
I did not say this, I am sorry you have to made up things to support your flawed arguments.
"attacking ... mankind in general"
I did not say anything like this, I am sorry you have to made up things to support your flawed arguments.
I am sorry you have so many assumptions in your arguments. This isn't usually the behavior of an intelligent person.
Its funny how you dismiss every criteria and deem them irrelevant but yet you use survival as a criteria to prove your arguments.
There is more to superiority than just basic survival.
No, I use it to prove the subjectivity of your arguments.
I actually just argued that survival is subjective and not proof of superiority a few of my comments down.
Using your logic every argument is subjective and there is no way to prove superiority, well thats convenient, everything is subjective, great why even have a discussion then? Why even have that word, lets rid the word superiority completely from the english language because its subjective. :/
Your comparison about giving me 1000$ to "help me" would make you superior is completely mind boggling not to say id1otic, how does using resources to my benefit equate you giving me something? The argument about he shark was that a shark could not even conceive of building something to its benefit regardless of it had the need to or not.
My criteria are NOT subjective, I'm using tangible criteria. You just dismiss them as subjective when they are clearly not, survival is not subjective, its a criteria just like anything else, you mention rodents would survive a meteor and the dinosaurs didn't, clearly in THAT respect the rodent was superior to the dinosaur, so you just used a tangible non subjective criteria to prove a point. Congratulations.
Now lets imagine the meteor never fell on earth and dinosaurs were still alive we could still use every other criteria to prove if its a superior or inferior species, the fact they ar not alive today does not make them inferior, equal or even superior without comparison using tangible criteria. Now if you want dismiss every criteria proposed as subjective, then this conversation is at a complete stand still and useless because neither side can prove anything.
You still don't understand. I usually charge for teaching, so be happy about this. This is really some of the most basic philosophy and college kids typically grasp this within a semester. Just read carefully a few times. I noticed you do not read my arguments well and you have also made incorrect statements about the film, like that it doesn't compare overall superiority, though it does. So read carefully. I know you're not dumb, but you are not getting to the bottom of the argument for detailed reasons outlined below.
1. Every argument for "inherent superiority" is subjective.
2. Arguments for superiority put in a context are not.
IN TERMS OF SURVIVAL: A species that survives is superior to one that dies
IN TERMS OF LEARNING: Humans are likely superior to all life on Earth
But if there are no terms, no context, you just ask "who is superior?" you either have to ask "superior in what way?" or just give your opinion about who is superior. Otherwise, the question is subjective by nature.
Here is an example: I can argue that humans are overall "superior" and give 1000 reasons. Another guy can debate back that rocks are superior and give 1000 reasons. We are just arguing "inherent, overall superiority" which is an opinion because there are no "master criteria" to measure against. What we need is a context.
What I can then do is argue humans have superior intelligence, running ability, eyesight, etc. If he argues against it, he is WRONG.
What he could do is argue that rocks are superior for building castles, roads, finding fossils inside, etc. If I argued against him, I would most likely be WRONG.
Get it?
Oh come on Warren, you know that you could never be WRONG.
Anyone who assumed that their opinion was everyone's would be wrong. I think you're just arguing to argue. It's kinda common sense
That is a valid observation. I am sincerely just trying to understand others' opinions.
Do I really need to answer this again? There IS a context and there IS a method. Of course this method and context NEEDS TO BE TANGIBLE.
My ENTIRE argument IS based on TANGIBLE criteria and WITHIN THOSE criteria humans are superior. Just like using the same criteria a chimp is superior to a slug!
Were arguing over which is the superior SPECIES not which is the most valuable, value is a different argument all together (which is your example of the comparison to a rock).
We're talking about superiority in the context of a SPECIES, and species have tangible criteria to make them succeed and superior to another, not in value, but in criteria like ability to survive, adaptability, resourcefulness, etc.
Man, Im not explaining this again.
"Superior" means higher or greater. It is not in a context by itself. Your argument about that is not true. "Superior species" still does not make sense. Superior how? You need to say superior at survival, or adaptability, resourcefulness, etc. every time. Just like I can't say the color blue is superior unless I put it into proper context. And proper context doesn't mean "superior color". That's still too vague.
Here is you with all your species replaced with colors:
_____________________________________________________
Do I really need to answer this again? There IS a context and there IS a method. Of course this method and context NEEDS TO BE TANGIBLE.
My ENTIRE argument IS based on TANGIBLE criteria and WITHIN THOSE criteria blue is superior. Just like using the same criteria a red is superior to yellow!
Were arguing over which is the superior COLOR not which is the most valuable, value is a different argument all together (which is your example of the comparison to a rock).
We're talking about superiority in the context of a COLOR, and COLORS have tangible criteria to make them succeed and superior to another, not in value, but in criteria
Again, you're not arguing superiority, you're arguing VALUE.
And replacing color to species is a false premise. You cannot determine tangible criteria for something that is a matter of taste and opinion like color.
When I say A human is more resourceful then a shark because a shark cannot conceive of building a machine to help it hunt, Im not stating an opinion, its a fact. How hard is that to understand?
The sad part is you think I dont get what you are saying, I understand that if I say humans are superior without providing context then it is totally subjective.
If I say humans are more valuable, again this is totally subjective. If I say humans have more rights then other species, subjective, humans are more attractive, subjective, etc.
But what I am saying, that you glance over apparently, is that if we list tangible criteria and provide context then we CAN determine superiority, you'll say which criteria? Ill answer every criteria imaginable that is TANGIBLE. Then you'll say which are? And I've already answered that question, resourcefulness, intelligence, adaptability, etc.
Within THOSE criteria we ARE superior. Within THAT context we are superior.
Im sure you'll say why do those set of criteria make us superior, well because its the only TANGIBLE scale we can use. Otherwise the debate is opinion.
YES we aren't superior in every subjective way, because YES those are matter of opinion. This is not to say that we are superior in our existence, only within those set of criteria.
You could never determine which is the superior existence as that again is subjective!
Rick you do not understand that the debate is opinion and there are no tangeble criteria,because every criteria has an"anticriteria" like dumbness and inteligence and if you apply all criteria you get equality.... that is what i was trying to say but sommewhere i get i wrong, because you do not seem to get it.like this Criteria speed slug(3) lion(8) slowness slug(8) lion(3) sum=each 5 by "every criteria thus equality everywhere, even thow my biological body does not cxare since i do kill plants and animals for my food:) YUMMY!!
I started to say it was an opinion in the first place... and I did make a reference ground for my statements... I never said it was truth, or fact... that was your assumption...
What I said is that even equality is a criteria... cuz 0... something neutral is a criteria all the same... that is the loop hole in your logic... I never said mine was the truth
I understand what you are saying, and yes each criteria must have a result that is considered positive, even if that positive is in human terms, for example if I say: NOT getting eaten +1. Getting eaten -1 and then I reverse the argument to say: Getting eaten +1 and Not getting eaten -1, then of course you get equality, but would you agree that a positive outcome is preferred to a negative one, thus NOT being eaten would be superior to being eaten. The context of the equation is the entire basis of the premise. Without context you have nothing, basically incomparability.
Not so fast. What is your equation for the combined traits? How did you get the equation? Why did you select certain attributes in the equation not others? Why you give certain weights to certain attributes? How did you perform the calculation and get the humans superiority conclusion? Be real scientific. Let other people verify your methods and data. Otherwise your conclusion is nothing. Others can also easily made up an so called equation and say "I find the opposite, humans are not superior".
How about you fund me and I spend my days writing papers and researching criteria to come up with a valid equation that would meet your standards. lol
Why don't you do the opposite also and prove to me we are not superior, oh wait, Ill just dismiss your arguments as unscientific because you haven't performed the proper research. Non sense.
Non sense. You are the one talked about equation of conbined traits, I did not bring up this. I am sorry you have problem remembering things you said.
You admited you don't even have the equations yet. So where did you get the conclusions (human superiority)? ? You don't know basic scientific procedure?
Making random judgements without research into the topic is the last thing a scientist should do. I am satisfied to show others that your statement was apparently unscientific although you pretent to be scientific.
I am not really concerning whatever you think. We always have extreme people in any populations.
What I said is I don't need to write one out for you to grasp that there is such an equation that can be determined, if you cant understand THAT then you don't know jack about science!
If you are so intent are arguing for days with her that there is such an equation, yet you cannot provide it, you look like one sad fellow.
How about this Rick: Provide me a list of criteria you think make a species superior, then we can debate/agree. It will not be about overall superiority, which is an opinion, it will be a logical argument about what you think makes a species great.
I DID about 50 times, I gave numerous examples like resourcefulness, adaptability, intelligence, communications skills, and there are thousands more I could cite.
How about this, YOU come up with a list and disprove that humans aren't superior.
To me they are all the same*(logically at least).I just do the one I prefer, I mean you do not choose youre preferences, wich is ok just do not go around saying youre way of beeing is superiour(But makes you happy thow) or that youre species is the ONE...
You keep getting me wrong... I have no problem with the animal abuse or domination, I'm tring to say that inteligence is not superiour lets say to fizical strenght or good eyesight or good smell, but you guys ignore my posts it seems:)) I's nothing special to inteligent like it's nothing special to have 360 degrees eyesight, since there is no goal, there are mecanisms only, you cand chose the one you like but purely objectively!
Your argument is we cannot determine superiority since the criteria proposed to determine superiority are only relative to us, I understand that.
I believe that is flawed reasoning, there are tangible criteria to determine what is superior, we analyze and determine the most practical, most efficient, most beneficial, most skilled, etc. not just only to the human species, but to every species.
Its a complete other debate to philosophize on which is the best existence, i.e.: to just sit, eat and sh1t all day or to work hard, build, create for example. These are 2 separate debates.
Every organism, every species, every plant is equal in its right to exist and thrive, in that sense, yes we are all equal, no living creature is superior in its right to exist or to have another species dominate it or abuse it.
The debate is SUPERIORITY, every argument this documentary tries to counter makes us superior to other species, just because some species share or even may surpass a human ability in one aspect, humans make up in many other ways. Superiority in skill, resourcefulness, comprehension, understanding, intelligence, etc. all these criteria as a WHOLE surpass every other species, thus making humans superior.
I mean life gives you things for no reason and takes them away for no reason. Even if you are a dog or a human or an extremofile... In this regard we are equal.
if its not superiour or inferiour equal its all that remains,is it not!? It may be I do not understand logic anymore:))
watch?v=ZCWC4sHbIV0 watch this on youtube ... it's funny
I think you would like Jacque Fresco or Carl Sagan since I ,somme time ago thinked like you and adored him, after that I saw Carling and began to dought things...plus watching the story of science helps please watch "george carling on the sanctity of life" on youtube
I've had seen Jacque Fresco, Carl Sagan and the other famous scientists on the Internet...and Carling, funny but it is very hard to take comedians serious :).
You've thrown a lot o things in into the discussion...I can only say that evolution wouldn't exist without death and you can debate about a higher purpose of human life on a abstract level but you have to be alive to debate it:).
Related to this films: If you can't say objectively that something is superior or inferior you also can not say that they are equal...it is still a statement of value.
From a more human and subjective perspective(let's not kid ourselves, we are all emotional human beings here and not objective reasoning machines) you can't say human and animals are equal because they are not the same by any "healthy" standard of value you use...similarly you can't say Stephen Hawking is equal to a drug dealer. And(punting aside most aspects of reality :) ), as Rick Kiriakidis already said, if something is not equal to you or inferior it doesn't mean you have to destroy it.
You still are making objective arguments... Whom sets the rules? there are only consequences but there is no goal, if you do not procreate, youre species dissapares,if you do not eat you die faster, but no goal in this. Think like this, whi isn't the goal in life to die? I mean it seams the only constant:)) since not everyone procreates ,eats ore survives on the long scale. But it's nice to think those are youre purposes in life. The best is that everyone choses their purpose...I know a girl that commited suicide because the guy with whom she was with dumped her... so what porpose man?? life is funny'er than you think !
From a biological perspective the purpose of life is clear, it is to procreate, eat and survive...beyond that it is only speculation. Natural selection works by "selecting" :) features necessary for the purpose of survival.
Stephen Hawking: 'It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value.' Because there are things you cannot control in life, and what help is to know that the end will come but you canno't stop it? in the sense that any day an asteroid could come from the belt and we would not know,the milky way will clash whith andromeda, there will be a time when the sun will go bang, and all that will exist in the universe will be black wholes, and these things are as certain as you can get:D
It's only natural to belive you are superiour, and to somme degree it's needed in life so you can manipulate the environment without feeling guilt. But it was also natural to belive the earth was stationary,the centre of the world,that a strong beeing in the sky is taking care of you and that the planets are living beeings"wonderers"
It is a product, but it is not the purpose of nature, nature has no purpose, you can chose one for it and then belive that some thing is better, superiour,but the problem is that you can change you're mind after somme time and then how funny is life?
Animals were made by the same purposeless mecanism named evolution, you cannot debate which one is superiour it's like debating which religion is superior, since the mecanism is the same and the re is no goal, they are equal
Animals can only be equal, since there is no superiour goal in life.It's aboat what you prefer, like do you want to live 1000yers but have to give up delicious foods, sweets,alcohool,tabaco,drugs,sex, or live 20 years but do whatever you want when you want it? It's objective preference hence everything is equal,plus I've explained that there can not be a superiour animal, it's a logical mistake Wat is so bad in going extinted as a specie, when you die you're world is over anyway
What is also a big flaw of this "documentary" is that it uses EVERY other species in comparison to the human species to determine superiority instead of pinning one species vs another species as to who is superior. It compares life spans saying a turtle lives 200 years but fails to say that a cat lives 20, does that not make the turtle superior to the cat in that aspect?
They espect you to be a smart guy and deduce that you cand make the comparison with whatever you want..
And you cannot cunatify a species since you have no criteria, you chose you're criteria hence you like the answer... you think species are like this? we arranged the by objective criteria, we could have gruped them by the hair color, we did not but could of... it would be the same
And I am sorry to say that evolutio IS random, it has mecanisms that drive the evolutin but evolution appears even by mutation because radiation and cuantic incertitude and by definition is random,you think that nature was made to make humans or inteligence?:))
Mutation are random in those cases, but not natural selection...you can say that only those mutation that gives an advantage to that species are kept :). It is fairly certain that human intelligent it is a product of natural selection.
Alot of people here seem to think that being superior means that it makes other species irrelevant or that being superior means we can abuse or mistreat other species or that being superior means we should not care about other living creatures. This is total nonsense, animals have rights just as humans do, they are an integral part of the planet and its ecosystem, they are extremely important to us.
Dfs, from what I understand you admire extremofiles, since they can live even if you striked earth with an asterois, a nuclear bomb, got the temperature to like -80 degrees and things like that, the eve line on asteroids:D and bassicali can life forvere(thow a black whole,a supernova and things like this would destroy them(And by destroy I mean reset the bondages between the particles they are made of:P))
I can't say I admire extremophiles :) it only seams that it is the most prevalent form of life and maybe the future...but you don't have to be an extremophile to survive and asteroid, you can deviate that asteroid so it doesn't hit you :).
What inteligence man? Ever heard of "The big rip"? wach the documentary "The univeres" please extinction awaits us all... And so life is just since all you get you get without doing noting and so you give it back, in this sense there is no differences between species, we all recive things like"legs" or "brains", we use them or not ,but in the end our faith is the same, wich i see as just since all we recived wasn't beccause we earned it, but was random
Evolution isn't random, the same with human culture.
Our fate isn't the same, living another 1000 years or living another 3 billion years with the prospect of freedom from material bounds is not the same.
"The big rip" is a prediction of our current scientific model and not an absolute.
Did they actually trying to draw a parallel between racism and humanism? "Human supremacists"?
This kind of propaganda is just a guilt trip for people who don't know any better than to ignore it.
Neanderthal were humans and gone extinct, so what are we superior in,ps genetically we are 99.9%chimp so what is in that 0.1% so special(ps: I hope you know that species are differed by objective means and people could be done the same, somme tried that withe the black people in the USA saiyng that they are a different species:)) I love people and the way they are so important, I think you can't imagine the world living without you, can you?) that you think you are superiour?PS: Also geneticaly we are different so we can't all be superiour,the tribe man is superiour ore the citizen? you seemingly haven't been around the world,have no knowlage about biology but keep reflecting at my previous posts and perhaps you'll be less ignorant, i have finished arguing,have the live you want to have...You clearly do not use the scientific method
We're all equal as humans, but if we strictly talk about I.Q. some people are superior to others, is that so hard of a concept to understand? As a race, a whole we are superior in most aspects to other life forms on the planet. we're probably not superior in space exploration to a alien advanced civilization, thus that would make them superior to us in that aspect, its not a hard concept to understand, really I cant believe Im still arguing about this!
First of all, IQ tests test a very narrow range of intelligence. people scoring high on these test have good mathematical and verbal linguistic skills. Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and skills. Mick Fleetwood is one of the most brilliant drummers in the world, yet he has trouble reading music.
When you say "as a race...we are superior to most" i think you mean as a species, and as a species we are only perceived as superior because we're basing other species' abilities compared to our own as if those of humans are the best. it is a loaded statement. its like cats a dogs. One would easily jump to the conclusion that they're not as able as humans because they can't put on a build a skyscraper, but then again, humans cant smell cancer in other humans. Try looking at it this way, cats arent able to apply bandages but they possess a natural ability to detect terminal illnesses in other living things.
Using intelligence(which is very ironic because without human intelligence all this discussions wouldn't exit) you can build a machine or genetically engineer a living thing do do the same thing that the cat does.
Yes I meant Species, sorry for the confusion. My I.Q. example was just a way to express how you can quantify aspects to determine superiority. You cite music, and yes there are different levels of musicians, thus making one superior to another in skill, we can quantify musicians as one being superior to another, same with species, the human species is superior to other species ont he planet, your example of cats and dogs was dismissed really well by Dfs as we can build machines that do the same thing and not only that we can come up with cures using medicine, that in itself makes us superior to a cat or a dog.
And I don't understand how can a person be superiour without saying in what aspect, I mean is Stephen Hawchings superiour ore Roy Floyd Maywather?
If you say humans are superiour and accept that humans have differences between them you are commiting a logical mistake,we can't all be the superiour creature. Thus what you actualy say is that every creature is superiour wich is another logical mistake so all you're left with is all creatures are equal wich is ok.And we live in an dinamic changing world thus perfect and superiour if they exist are trapped in time so are changing:D.Even if you dissagree you canot say we are the superiour creature(haw can you know this ,how do you know that there is no superiour creature to us in the universe?)all you can say is we were the superiour creature because all you know is the past, there is no present you interpret the short past(001ms) as youre present ,remembe light needs time to propagate so you need time to proces the thimg and in that time the thing has changed:)) ain't life great?
Man, worms eat YOU,YOU depend on things like plants to survive, bacteria feasts on YOU,YOU live you're life on a tiny planet in a tiny insegnifiant galaxy,YOU spent you're time on totally objective nonsenses thing it's the right thing,YOU destroy you're environment,how are YOU suposed to be a superior creature?And from what i've been teached we are still evolving so not every human should be caled"superiour" by you're standards(PS: The best part is you will die and no body will remember you some day.... It's a scientific FACT that you will die whatever you do,ATOMS decay remember:))?)(If you say that every human is equal,than every species is equal:P Ain't life fun:)) )
People here are confusing "purpose" with "superiority". Every organism, every plant, every insect has its purpose in the cycle of life and each serve their own purpose, but as far as superiority, we are superior to every other life form on the planet, its not to say we have to be cruel to every other life form or abuse every other life form, but we are at the top of the evolutionary scale its a scientific FACT. Arguing over PURPOSE is not the same as arguing over SUPERIORITY. If you want to argue semantics over superiority like insects are superior because they can build huge structures (on their scale level) well that's great, I can argue just about any point in that manner. This documentary does just that.
Man, worms eat YOU,YOU depend on things like plants to survive, bacteria feasts on YOU,YOU live you're life on a tiny planet in a tiny insegnifiant galaxy,YOU spent you're time on totally objective nonsenses thing it's the right thing,YOU destroy you're environment,how are YOU suposed to be a superior creature?And from what i've been teached we are still evolving so not every human should be caled"superiour" by you're standards(PS: The best part is you will die and no body will remember you some day.... It's a scientific FACT that you will die whatever you do,ATOMS decay remember:))?)(If you say that every human is equal,than every species is equal:P)
Again, you're making arguments based on semantics, EVERY ORGANISM dies, every organism feeds on another or on things that used to be alive, every organism serves a purposes, but we're talking about superiority and if we're to categorize superiority and make a list, humans are at the top. If you;re going to make a list and divide every criteria in different sublists, sure we wont be on top of all them, but on a very large percentage of them.
And Descartes needed a difference between mind and body or else he couldnt affirm"Cogito ergo sum " and he couldn't prove that he existed:)) because everything that is fizical can be simulated, thus if you're thought is just a bunch of neurons transmitting electric signals then you can not be 100% certain of enything, and no body wants that...
I have absolutley no problem with animal slaughter, even thow I now the facts... I mean I only care aboat my species.The ones that care of the others do not know some facts... like the fact that there is no profound differences between living and non living stuff, mecanicaly speaking at least,so i think that the ones that cry because animal slaughter today will cry because carbon atoms tommarow*(79%carbon,remember?)
Yo dracu_a_spus, as long as you dont know everything(serch Goedel) you can not put any species above another... I mean, what matters in life? The person with whom you are with? youre life espectancy,the food you eat,the speed you run? theese are purely objective values thus are all equal. So in life, every species is equal... Since all of them have objective values.
Ps: I would still kill a pig or chicken for the meat, I act egocentrist:)) ,even thow i know no one is special...
I was just pointing out a major scientific mistake in your argument. It's interesting to see you respond so dirty to a scientific/academic discussion. This reaction suggests your LACK of understanding of academic operation. Releasing your aggression does not make your argument look any more intelligent.
"false pretense of modesty"
Do some research. Whoever has doubts of any facts in the film should research the references. Closed minded people prefer to keep their mind closed so they feel safe, this is such an unfortunate human behavior. The film shows environmentalism and animal rights have a science base.
Great doc reminds me of my daily struggle to explain it's point of humans being "not so bright" after all. The defective reality that so few seem to even be capable of accepting this very fact proves just how disadvantaged we are compared to natural life.
It sure slaps the fact that we do one thing better than all other forms of life right in our faces enough that I think I will suggest it to all the "supreme" humans that cut me off at the hint of conversing in a tone reflecting anything but the brilliancy of their reality.
Oh, the one thing we do so well is F#@K SH!T UP. Wow there is something to be proud of. Sorry but unless we can accept just how awful we are to each other and every living system on earth we can never save ourselves and perhaps that is the very best thing the rest of nature has going for it.
Self-loathing can be pathological...I guess you don't judge humans with the same standards you judge other animals, that can be easily understood.
arrogance and narcissism can be equally pathological.
I watched even though I was sure it would be a waste of time, guess what? -"It reeks of the stench of a deep arrogance hidden behind a thin facade of decorous modesty".
Considering the fact that species are designed by natural selection related to the environment were those species formed, in my opinion, it is meaningless to say that one specie is inferior or superior to other...and that they are all the on the same level for that matter. If some people still insist to play this game and classify animals on subjective values I can say that the human race is "superior" because it has managed in a degree to free its evolutionary path from the constraints of the physical environment and biology and manged to form cultures and organizations that survive the death of individual members; also the human brain is the most complex object in known universe, it is a marker of our superior intellect(it is calculated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct, our intellect may be only thing that could spare us that fate so you can never, ever overestimate it) without which this film, related discussions and us as a specie wouldn't exist.
If some of you were to judge living things by their survival rate look no further than bacterias, they were here long before complex life and will be here after, so if you have a self-hating value system and need to announce the superiority of other life forms do it with bacteria, and if you also have a guilty conscience about the impact your existence has on other animals or plants there is no other solution than to kill yourself(if you aren't that absolute, convert to Jainism and spend your days sweeping the ground before you not to stomp on some bug)...every action you take impacts in a "negative" way some life forms.
Besides the few scientific facts presented in this film there is nothing to give credence to it, it is flawed mainly because the maker/writer presented it from his subjective, emotional and biased view, censored/distorted opposing views and failed to analyze things in perspective .
Finally I understand that there are a lot of people here that disagree with me, my simple advice is that before passing a judgment it is good to analyze you line of thinking and see if it is more emotional than rational.
"Considering the fact that species are designed by natural selection related to the environment were those species formed, in my opinion, it is meaningless to say that one specie is inferior or superior to other...and that they are all the on the same level for that matter."
-That's the point and end conclusion of the film
"subjective, emotional and biased view"
-53:16 - 56:10 All the subjective arguments are revealed as silly and biased.
"If some of you were to judge living things by their survival rate look no further than bacterias"
-The film says that at 1:00:40
You can pick and chose from the dispersed ideas presented in this film but It only attacks the biases of the "human superiority complex" and not those of the "animal rights activist inferiority complex"...it doesn't present a clear and balance view. The only views presented here are those of animal rights activists...and all acted like they have the moral high ground.
The films concludes by saying all animals are equal, a moral judgment and, in principal, not different from saying that some are superior and some are inferior...it is still a projection of a subjective value system. For me another thing that invalidates most points made in this film is the fact that there had to be humans to speak in the name of other animals and represent them...however you analyze you can never conclude that humans and other animals are the same on every level without denying reality...you can only say that they are similar which beats the purpose of this film because to this day I haven't meet/seen/heard of a person that denies this fact.
"I haven't meet/seen/heard of a person that denies this fact"
This is a bad sampling. You need to do a scientific survey on the topic before making judgment of public opinions.
"they are similar "
Some think there is a little similarity. Some think there is a lot of similarity. Those two types of people do not think the same. opinions are spectrum, not yes and no questions. You should not generalize.
That's being anal and it is all beyond the point I was trying to make. In my humble opinion the only purpose of this film is to push the animal rights agents on the false pretense of modesty, objectiveness and scientific backing...I won't try to repeat myself on how I got to this conclusion, I already wasted to much time with this.
You can argue to what degree humans and other animals are similar but in the context of this film and discussion, for me, it is more important that they are different.
May you have a happy life.
When an ant makes a self-deprecating documentary about it's mindless social order...I'll watch.
How about watch now so you can stop being discriminatory?
When Chinese people stop writing in little characters and start writing in English, then I'll say they have language. Agree or disagree? You can't compare species by something only they themselves are interested in.
Ants have been around tens of millions of years longer than humans and are literally more successful than humans at survival. If they outlive us (statistically likely) this will show that documentaries are not important for survival. Ants couldn't care less about our technology because they are only useful for humans, and we have little interest in their farming, societies, building, advanced communication, etc.
Not saying any species is superior, but watch the discrimination. It's the exact same attitude used for ethnocentrism. We depend on other life forms - especially plants, and it's kind of pathetic to tease them to raise our self-esteem.
The obstinate altruistic self-deprecating characteristic of the first species (as far as we know) to understand itself is by definition superior. Ego is only a symptom of our success imo. The obvious point for me here is that we should take responsibility for our position on the evolutionary ladder and stop giving in to our tendency to devalue ourselves. It reeks of the stench of a deep arrogance hidden behind a thin facade of decorous modesty.
Are you talking in the name of the ants? :)...to keep in line with your way of thinking can ants stop an asteroid from hitting planet earth to save themselves?
Don't forget that 99% of all the species that ever existed are extinct...the same fate awaits ants, sharks and crocodiles...and maybe humans if we don't use our intelligence.
If we are ants to something bigger, it must think we behave stupidly.
az
This is the same kinda crap that religion puts out. Be ashamed of those naughty feeling you have, suppress them. You will burn in heck if you don't.
Why are we constantly being told to feel bad for things that we shouldn't be. And of all things, because we are intelligent?!!! WHAT!
Sure we could abandon everything our species has accomplished in the past ten thousand years and go live in a forest eating berries. We could just try not to think or to strive to be better. Then we would be the same as all the other life on this planet, content in the status quo.
Then again all other forms of life dont actually live in perfect balance. The predators will kill and reproduce until there isn't enough food for them, then they'll die off and the prey will slowly come back. The balance of nature isn't as balanced as people think it is.
Do we really need affirmative action of nature now? Lets kill off a few billion people so that walrus's can recover? What if then there are too many walrus's and they start to kill off all the fish, do we then kill off the walrus's. What happens if the fish they eat start to take over, do we poison them too?
I really wish George Carlin was around to see this documentary. Would make some funny stand up i think.
You are totally putting words in others' mouths.
Just because a documentary reveals that superiority is an opinion, not an inherent truth, you get the idea it's asking you to give up intelligence and go live in the forest.
Humans are intelligent, and that's great for us and we should keep that, but intelligence does not automatically entail survival and superiority (which is an opinion). Get it? Upon hearing this, you have a rant and think it's saying humans suck and predator-prey relationships shouldn't happen.
Let me guess, a documentary saying that Nazis aren't the superior race is saying that German people are totally worthless and should give up their culture? That's how you're reacting. Not superior does not mean totally worthless or inferior. You have Aristotelian logic and see things only black or white, up or down, best or worst.
It's shocking you mention George Carlin. Watch "George Carlin on the Environment" to see how extremely idi0tic you sound. He dismisses the importance of humans and other species. There is no "superior species", it's your illusion.
We live in an imperfect world and as such we will never liver in a perfect society however that does not mean that we should abuse our power over those that cannot defend themselves human or animal. we should strive to make things better for all life.
Superb doc!
We are all interconnected. The animal species could easily survive without humans, humans could not survive without the different animal species.
What is higher or lower, when in fact everything is in the middle with their own contribution. As humans we look from aside not above.
az
"humans could not survive without the different animal species."
Whaaaat?
Tons of species have disappeared when a new predator was inserted into the population, humans COULD live on without animals, just think about space stations or colonizing the moon or Mars for example.
Keep in mind that insects including bees, fungi and plankton are animals.
To be able to reach the day we will colonize other plantets, we need to have enough food to sustain us, unless we become robots who don't need food.
Would we still be humans?
az
everything we know or have done is based of animals in some underlying aspect - from movement to space travel
we're so superior that we have categorizes ourselves as distinct from all other creatures whereas we're really just animals - no more no less. Most of the things that make us think that we are special like our intellect have been used nowadays to create unneeded or materialistic things which long term have become counter productive to everyone and everything on this planet and probably in the local universe next.
Go play with a predator w/o a weapon and lets see whos superior.
When human become computers, what will be of animals?
az
excellent. made for a great night.
Jack 1952...Im assuming you didnt watch this Doc in its entirety. To state " but being a human makes them(us) more important"...just shows that the essence of this Doc(message) just failed to touch within you compassion and care for all other living beings on this planet...and your unfortunate failure to see the connectivness. Guess you're just not ready to identify with this truth just yet. yet it is truth. Unquestionable truth. Nothing is "contingent on the behavior of humans involved"...It is the need to respect all living things as our equals on this planet . To value your "friends" over the balance and respect of all nature is ridiculously foolish...Just like the loyal wife whom you find in bed with your best friend ....friends should not be relied upon as a dependable measure of your worth on this planet...Your measure of worth on this planet is nothing short of what you have done in your life to guarantee. the continuation of the balance of nature and respecting that balance as essential and morally right ...in essence ...your obligation . It always amazes me to see such a reply , to such a thought /morally provoking doc...that one always refers to what is "currently" most important to them. Missing the point completely . We are all connected and are morally and ethically responsible to each other...for care and survival.Are you aware sharks are over 100 million years old , yet in last 100 yrs , many species are near extinction. Because many think shark fin soup is a delicacy. Do you see a problem here Jack? This future world is the future world of your loved ones . If you dont care for the other beings on the planet , do it for your loved ones. Due to your self centered love...you will gift me with assisting other species on this planet in surviving. Jack..do you remember that you stated the animal kingdom was 4th on your list of priorities. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where did I say that it was ok to slaughter a species to extinction? What makes you think that I don't care for the other beings on this planet? I gave a list in order of priority that I would think would apply to all humans. Saying that my first responsibility is to my family does not relieve me of my responsibility to everyone and anything else. If my boss gives me a list of duties in order of priority, he isn't telling me to ignore the last item on the list. If that is my assumption I doubt that I would have that job for long.
A loyal wife who sleeps with my best friend is not loyal and can expect that she will not be my wife for very much longer. Ditto for the so called best friend. That is the behavioral problem that I talked about where someone could lose their status on my list. Not that unreasonable I would think.
The driving force of every living entity and organism is to survive. It is the prime directive. Respect for and keeping a balance in nature is an intellectual exercise and is only discussed by the single known species that is capable of understanding this ideology. This discussion arises because of our unique position in the animal kingdom and realizing the effect our actions have on nature. This respect helps to make our lives worth living and the lives of those who come after us. It is what I should do for my loved ones...once again my first priority.
That anyone would place animals as a priority over their fellow human beings astounds me. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fact that we are interconnected doesn't mean we are equal. Morality is subjective and if you care more about other animals than about yourself you don't have other choice than to kill yourself because without even knowing it you kill other animals and imbalance nature.
My first loyalty is to my family and friends, then to my fellow human beings, then to the animal kingdom. If an animal is to break into the top two it is on a situational basis and contingent on the behavior of the human(s) involved. Humans may or may not be superior but being a human myself it does make them more important.
You are absolutely correct in your post.
People care (or at least they should) about other people.
Just like rats care about other rats and have no intresst in what othert animals do.
And as fairgoose talks about "compassion and care for all other living beings on this planet" that doesnt seem to include plants. Because clearly animals are superior to plants by his or her logic.
"rats care about other rats and have no intresst in what othert animals do." Untrue, go ask pet rat masters, there are many videos of pet rats on Youtube.
Well ok then they care about other rats and the person that feeds them which keeps them from dying.
That doesn´t proof they care. Only that they are smart enough to want to live.
Ideas of superiority are rooted in the 'Great Chain of Being' whic puts God at the top and women and the Devil at the bottom, with all other life placed somewhere inbetween. Hierarchical systems of thought and social organisation are responsible for many of our present problems like violence, war, inequality and greed - the notion of 'superiority' is archaic and plain wrong. Everything just is - there's no top or bottom - position is in the eyes of the beholder.
Everything is not objectively equal...metaphysical walls won't save you from physical reality.
Animals are nothing more then tools, to be used as humans see fit...
LOL without humans being way better then other life forms we would never see this video. Call me when dolphins achieve space flight or ant invent the internet.
LOL, learn some science, microbes have been found surviving in space without equipment. Some dolphins with your attitude would also laugh at you because you cannot see through animal bodies. Dolphins use ultrasound, they can 'see' the babies in pregnant women. Ignorant people are so pathetic.
Ya we can see babies in people too. What are you talking about? We can go underwater with technology. Can a dolphin go on land or in the air or into space? No.
Why do we have to be ashamed that we are superior. It isn't arrogance, its just a fact. Physically we are mediocre. We aren't particularly better or worse then any other species, its our brains that make us better.
And yes ignorant people ARE pathetic....
LOL, needing the help of equipments is an advantage? There are plenty of life forms can be found on the land, in the air and into the space. Check tree of life then you will know most animals you know are a very small part of all lives on earth. Ignorant people are so pathetic.
Are you speaking in the name of dolphins? We have tools to see babies in pregnant women....can dolphins save themselves from fishing nets? :)
Does anyone know what might be going on with the difficulty I have watching videos on this website? Several seconds will go by with no progress in the video (but the audio continues) then the video just skips ahead and I miss the past few seconds. Should I let the whole video play and then move the pointer back to the beginning because the movie has been loaded - does that make sense?
Sorry, I haven't had that problem here. My computer is pretty weak, as modern computers go. I have had that problem sometimes with videos on the web, but not on this site.
Good luck....
Brilliant documentary.
Interesting to see how polarised the comments are. Some folks seem very offended this doc. Perhaps it wobbles the pedestal that holds the fragile ego that desparately needs to feel its delusional superiority.
You are generalizing about peoples ego being hurt, this film makes a lot of statements beside attacking the human species superiority complex...one of that statement is that all animals are equal which is not a objective fact, it is a subjective moral judgment.
This documentary is pathetic, there is no mention of the exceptional human capacity of quickly innovate and use imagination and creativity to generate an unlimited amount of solution to every possible problem and rapidly adapt to almost everything. This is very ungrateful to all the human to whom we owe everything. This documentary is a big joke. Just propaganda to justify hate on some human (westerner) with politically-correct argument.
PS. It does't mean that I don't respect animals and nature.
"generate an unlimited amount of solution to every possible problem" LOL, where did you get this illusion? UN should hire you to help with so many world issues. I have a small problem here, I would like to get rid of cancer from the human population next month, can you, or the superior humans, provide a solution?
It looks like some people are really brain washed to believe humans superiority.
@Rick Kiriakidis
"Its CLEAR we're the top of the food chain"
One of the film's main points is debunking the "top of the food chain" myth.
"the masters of our environment and the planet"
According to the film, other species are much older than us and will be around much longer. Check out the plants thriving near Chernobyl. Also check out the fact that all of humanity's nuclear weapons ignited in one spot are only a fraction as powerful as the earthquake causing the 2004 tsunami.
"let us not forget we treat each other way worse"
The film opens with Nazi footage and climaxes with nuclear war. The whole film criticizes that.
My conclusion: You have not watched even one minute of the film.
The fact that you understood his argument and conceptualised a response is proof that you are superior to all other non human life on this planet.
Humans are superior. We aren't perfect but that we feel remorse for doing something bad or build technology to overcome problems
shows we are better. Animals brutally kill each other all the time and all the while dont give a crap about doing it.
If we really wanted to destroy the planet we could do it fairly easily. Attach some rockets to a few 5 mile wide asteroids. Smash them into one of the 100 mile wide asteroids in the belt, and drive it twards earth. End of all life on earth for a billion years or so.
Every other life form on this planet couldn't even dream of something i just so casually described.
Does conceptualising a response constitute superiority? Humans value the ability to argue, therefore you see it as superior. What if a dog judged you as inferior since it can outclass your sense of smell many fold? They value their trait and have little need for argument. Your fundamental assumption is that human traits = success.
Superiority is an opinion, unless put into a specific context.
Green is the superior colour. Prove me wrong.
Please research "objective" and "subjective".
A fairer way to compare life forms without assuming that intelligence (we win), smell (bears win), running speed (cheetahs), or other traits are just magically superior is to compare their reproductive success. Other species were around for billions of years and will likely continue to be around longer than us.
Your idea to propel a 100 mile wide asteroid towards Earth is not possible at this time. If it was and it did kill all humans, you would consider that winning?
A dog can't 'judge' me. A dog waits for me to feed it or goes and plays with a ball i throw. It is as intelligent or less so then a retarded human.
As i said in a previous post, humans physically are mediocre. Its our intelligence that has allowed us to rule this planet. We use technology that we invented with our intelligence to overcome ALL physical limitations. Since no other species has come even close to the smallest advances we made 1000's of years ago i would say that yes indeed we are superior in all the ways that count.
Have some pride in your birthright. You are better then animals. Boo hoo for you.
Watch the elephant paint a self portrait at 3min and 45sec...Amazing!
pfft, i can paint a better elephant!
Not with your nose. LOl
az
we shall see....
On the last day of creation, God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Thus, He finished His work with a “personal touch.” God formed man from the dust and gave him life by sharing His own breath (Genesis 2:7). Accordingly, man is unique among all God’s creations, having both a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit.
Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body. However, Adam’s body did mirror the life of God insofar as it was created in perfect health and was not subject to death.
The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended US (man) to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables him to commune with his Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.
Since humans were given dominion over the earth, this documentary is nothing short of stupid. Of course humans are superior!
Regurgitating scripture proves your superiority, at least. Although, I am glad that you clarified what you meant by US. At first I thought you meant the United States. Save the world!!
wow a creationist, I thought we evolved past this stupidity crap.
c'mon, man! the bible also says you can't wear clothes made of mixed materials. looking at your profile pic it looks like your shirt may make you a sinner. have an open mind and don't cherry pick from a book that has gone through immense changes over thousands of years BY MAN. namaste.
Whats nothing short of stupid is your comment.
That self proclaimed all powerful deity couldn't even write his own book.With all this apparent power I don't understand why he couldn't carve his message into a few mountains. Instead he makes himself look impotent by using 'chosen people' to write it. That book is a very poor use of trees. It would be more useful if it was being pulped for toilet paper.
'It is likeness morally' well that I may agree on, nations do seem to conduct there foreign affairs in a manner taught that was taught to the hebrews by the genocidal god of the old testament.
Being superior humans, we decided what resources are valuable what are not and perform any function necessary to insure we retain that control. No other creature seems to have demonstrated that desire or ability. When a creature demonstrates it's domination over man, then does it become superior.
This does not counter same-species creatures, as corporate managers tend to be easily dominated by superior members of it's own species.
we have lost the connection to our entire surrounding & living bretheren,whom make us,what we are !
very nice doc. i loved it. It definitely made me think..changed my perspective towards other life forms..i very much agree every species is intelligent in its own way and the intelligence cannot be calibrated according to the perspective of one species. Though, my mind still debates about the "degree of conciousness" between humans and other species..and yes we are a part of big machine and should work together with other parts.
After watching this "documentary" I learned that after religious trolls, peta/animal "rights" trolls are the very best with a similar twisted anthropomorphic projections on reality but in opposite directions.
What a waste of time, I'm at a loss for words to describe how pointless and meaningless is this...but maybe a prairie dog could do it.
i can tell you what was more a waste of time , reading your post
Could you share a little wisdom and please elaborate on why do you think so?
PETA is not animal rights - they murder animals and do ridiculous publicity schemes based on sex rather than fact. Animal rights people hate them. Actually, just about everyone probably does.
The film attacks anthropomorphic projections btw, although humans can never completely escape anthropocentrism since we are humans. I thought the overall point was good that "superior" is an opinion.
Imagine the scientific and moral progress if religious nuts found out they were not immortal creations of god going to heaven to live in bliss forever and they were animals too.
OK, I only have a big picture about the animal rights movement and I don't know all the details but for me it is enough that a good percentage of the PETA members and the general animal "rights" people seem to have in common the same violent(even if is not physical violence), coercive and self-hatred mentality.
First of all I doubt that any reasonable person will say that human are not animals and taken in detail that there are few things exclusive to humans(which this films "tries" to do but fails to analyze things in perspective), that animals don't feel pain(evidently on a different level but dependent on the way you define pain), that some animals don't have finer senses than humans, that humans have the "right" to do whatever they feel like to animals etc...but the way the problem was put in this film is just childish and meant to stir emotions, like in a football match, I take the team of the animals and you take the team of the humans.
You're right, reality, in the way we perceive it, is just a projection of our human mind and especially in the case of subjective concepts like superiority is it meaningless to say something is absolute. Also the concept of value is a human invention, you can find it in the animal realm but not on a abstract level, how it discussed in this film.
Also you can say that this film attacks some religious anthropomorphic projections but uses more anthropomorphic projections on the animal realm and emotional attacks which only distorts things even more and thus fails to make a valid point.
This is my point of view but, like with religion, on questions of value and morals you can argue forever.
Good you claim to not know the details about animal rights, and that's not sarcastic. Animal rights would describe a shelter that has a no kill policy. PETA is not animal rights. They claim to be, but really just do celebrity stuff and publicity stunts which is terrible for animals. That's why animal activists hate PETA. In reality, it has been proven in several surveys that people who are nicer to animals are also nicer to humans. People who are meaner to animals are meaner to humans (Jeffrey Dahmer is a famous example). You can use this on PETA too. They act like they are better than everyone else, misinterpret evolution, have celeb campaigns (hierarchical), and run around naked. Not surprisingly, their founder murdered thousands of cats in her shed and continues to have her followers kill most of the animals that are brought to them. People in that group may simply be sociopathic.
You're right - any reasonable person wouldn't need to watch this film. Over 65% of people on the world belong to religions that make a clear distinction between humans and other life forms. Be careful not to greatly overestimate the intelligence of the majority of people on the planet. I wouldn't identify as an activist, but was personally rocked to hear that some people deny animal pain and still use that as an excuse for abuse. A couple months ago, a leading professor used it in a nationally televised debate. Nobody could debate it back. Some people spent their lifetimes trying to debunk this ideology.
I do not think revealing that "superiority" is an opinion is an anthropocentric, emotional smear. Whoever does must have their chips in the game. For emotion, please see Earthlings (I think it's from the PETA camp), but don't eat while you watch it.
I had known about the PETA euthanasia rate, and in my opinion, it is the only way they could manage to "eliminate" animal suffering(which in principal is absurd)...unlike wild animals, domestic animals you can't set then free in the wild and you have to build costly animal sanctuaries and the fact that all animals multiply(if you were to be puritan you could say that sterilization is a breach of the animals "rights") makes impossible any other solution.
I assume that the people you mention deny animal pain on a philosophical/conceptual level and unless you analyzed the problem from that perspective and have a philosophy background you can't say that is wrong...it may a limitation of the human perception and not being able to empathize with other animals, but considering the fact that most people don't empathize with members of their own species I think it is a difficult topic.
Also considering the nature and medium of this discussion it is absurd not to overestimate human intelligence...it is all a byproduct of human intelligence, without it, this discussion and everything you see before you won't even exist...you can argue that it may be better if all wouldn't exist but you're still using your intelligence for that.
To conclude, I have seen Earthlings and other famous animal "rights" documentaries and to this day I haven't found a single reason the take this movement serious.
Yes, eliminate "suffering" is an ideology focused on "animal welfare", not "animal rights". PETA, their religious leader Peter Singer, and most mainstream animal orgs are welfare. They kill animals, which is insane. The ADL doesn't go around killing Jewish people.
The people I mention who deny animal pain actually deny it. They argue that a dog doesn't feel pain because they could build a machine dog that looked like it was struggling and played pre-recorded whimper noises. The problem with this argument is that a dog has pretty much everything a human has, including a nervous system, similar biochemicals, etc. If they deny animal pain, then they have to deny pain in other humans as well because they are denying the fundamental parts that allow humans to feel pain. This is a serious argument top academics use. It comes from a 400+ year old French Catholic on a quest to prove humans are the only entities that can think and feel.
"the fact that most people don't empathize with members of their own species"
This is not a fact. The rate of psychopathy in society is very low. Humans are fundamentally a cooperative species. The myth of man as a fundamentally evil creature is from Abrahamic religions. Traces of man's early ancestors show that they were small and nearly defenseless, being preyed on by large hawks and other hunters. That is when larger scale social cooperation was likely genetically selected.
I am not an animal rights activist, so I'm not too concerned whether you like that movement. I was originally reviewing the film, which includes the importance of plants, other life forms, and even non-living things like water and air, not just animals. From everything you mentioned thus far, I think PETA has seriously biased your view of animal protection. They need money and fame though, so I can't blame them.
I agree with you on most points. It is worrying that there still are people so close-minded and egocentric, I guess that this film is aimed at them but the method used will just put them off and have very little or no results.
Sociopathy is more prevalent than psychopathy, but you're right is not that prevalent, still enough to worry...anyway it may be a consequence of concentrating population in big cities.
You can say I'm biased in my view on animal welfare, this is mainly because I don't consider it so important compared to other problems in the modern world.
That's about it :)
Awesome documentary! I especially enjoyed the sarcasm!
Wow, this was a waste of an hour. I don't understand what the point of this documentary was? Its CLEAR we're the top of the food chain, and the masters of our environment and the planet, yes at the detriment of other species, but if we're being judged on how we treat animals, let us not forget we treat each other way worse. Complete waste of time.
"Its CLEAR we're the top of the food chain"
You just watched a film debunking the statement that being at the top of the food chain makes humans superior, then argued against it by saying being at the top of the food chain makes humans superior.
***Idiot of The Year Award 2012***
Congratulations!
"let us not forget we treat each other way worse."
One of its main points is criticizing racism, genocide, subversion, war, etc. It's actually the climax.
***Idiot of The Year Award 2013***
Congratulations! We have never had
to select next year's winner so early!
We may be at the top of Our food chain, but we're yummy snacks to mosquitoes and worms.
Assuming humans made this doc., asking these questions one must delve into the "body of thought" by all non-human organisms before we can fairly say who is superior or at least equal. Otherwise we are making this judgement based only on our "measurable" intellectual superiority which allows us to try to answer such a question. (and dont forget to include any alien species "out there" in the discussion.) Always remember the "known-knowns, the known unknowns and especially the unknown unknowns" as the great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld has said.
more of what they call antihumanism
Whenever a truth is put forward, that truth is attacked. Brave souls who dare to stand up to the breeding machines are attacked as being "antihuman". Remember history, whenever new ideas come forward, they must first endure the ignorant fear of the status quo.