bluefugue

Humans naked in the woods with no tools wouldn't be a fair contest, though, as it is precisely our ability to make tools (plus our robust yet flexible social organization) that gives us our edge. A human can't beat a tiger in a one-on-one fight, but the human wouldn't (generally) be *dumb* enough to pick such a fight. Instead he'd get together with 10 other humans and bring spears. And that tiger would become tiger stew.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Someone should have told you folks long ago...

...humans are animals.

Keith.

Yggdrasill

*I corrected your statement, I for one did not not say humans weren't animals.

GeoTheo

I think you have it a bit backwards. I think we developed big brains first and then lost the big teeth and hair etc. becuause we no longer needed it.

People have tried your experiment and survived quite well using their brains. I remember a Guy who stripped himself and entered the woods and returned 2 years later healthy and clothed in animal skins. I'm sure plenty of pre-literate tribal people in various parts of the globe, past and present,could take you up on your challenge as well.

wdog

Lady,

I hear that. Ellie determines a lot of how our life is lived. What is really funny is when I put on my running shoes. She loves to go with, I should say she demands to go with with lots of barking and running back and forth from me to the door. She always gets her way

Corgan Sow

Sorry for the confusion...I was in half-dozed mood... and made a blundered post.

I am a bit unclear as to what this thread is about, so if I have it wrong, let me know. It looks like the original poster, Corgan Sow, is taking issue with those who appeal to God's fiat (perhaps) to support a view of the superiority (in some sense) of humans over non-human inhabitants of this planet. CS seems to be suggesting that the superiority (in some sense)of humans over non-humans can be defended on other grounds, and then proceeds to offer some grounds.

I forgot to mention that I am amused by christians who used our intelligence as an excuse that our characteristics are SEPERATE from animals, like those lame examples I gave you. I am not a fundie and I do not believe that we are more superior than animals except our craniums, again. I am just bringing these claims to everyone's attention, starting from this topic <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=000180&p=" target="_blank">here.</a>

some of the claims from the link:



These properties can establiss the superriority of humans over non-humans, according to CS's, if I read him/her properly. If this is the thrust of CS post, I have a couple of question about CS's claims; I won't address the claim about the possession/non-possession of a soul comparsion, at this point.

Sorry for misclarification again. Right on track.

First question: In what sense of 'superiority' does the possession by humans of the abilities/characteristics/properties mentioned make humans superior to non-humans-- what sense, that is, apart from superiority along that particular dimension. In an obvious sense, someone with greater ability to produce tools will be superior in tool-producing. Similarly, someone who is superior in an ability to produce art will produce superior art (assuming the appropriate motivation). But CS isn't just making these trivial points, I assume. So, what is the superiority that these lesser superioritiesconfers?

I think I assume (lame assumption) that Christians/theists uses again, our distinct advantage of other species as 'evidence' that homo sapiens are seperate from Darwin's predicted evolution track. Again, this assumption comes from this

Second question: Whatever this larger sense of superiority that CS has in mind, if I possess more of these lesser superiorities than you possess, am I thereby superior to you? Or if whites possess more of these superiorities (or more of some relevant sub-set of these lesser superiories) than blacks, are whites superior to blacks?

Again racism I think is a weak analogy against ...what I am "arguing". I think maybe the theists who made the point (like Seraphim at that link did) may agree that they are more superior...in that sense.

I am trying to get a clear(er) understanding of the claim that CS is making here.

My apologies. I hope my post is still not too late.

scigirl

Well I hear peacocks make great vascular surgeons, you know, because they are so vein!

Ok I really need more sleep...

Humans are more superior to animals if you set the "scale of superiority" as things we do better than other animals. If, you, however, rank superiority by "ability to sense electricity without machines," well the sharks win.

For me, the idea that we are superior comes from the fact that we pretty much could destroy any other species on the planet (whereas they could not purposely destroy us). Therefore, we have a much bigger responsibility to care for the earth. Sounds cheezy - but if we don't do it, the chimps and dogs aren't going to - right Geo?

scigirl

Nataraja

GeoTheo, I am very glad that you are aware of canine social recognitions. I assure you that they actually do enjoy your company. My own canines have decided that it is far easier to ignore my authority than to challenge it, an arrangement they have grown to rather like. Fortunately, I've managed to drive it home to them that 1) a man's trash is sacred, 2) chasing after some dumb squirrel isn't worth being electrocuted by their collar (they used to think so), 3) "shut up" usually means, in addition to the actual meaning of the command, that I have a rolled up newspaper within arm's reach and a bad enough headache that I have the will to use it, 4) there is a definite connection between "out!" and a boot in the rear end, and 5) "come" often means that I have given them a choice between coming immedeately to point A and being hauled there by whichever body part I happen to grab first.

My own great affection is for snakes. Snakes do what snakes do and as long as they do what they do they are really quite content.

And no, most of my friends are not animals, unless you count cats, most of whom that I have met so far I consider, unlike most non-humans and many humans, my peers.

Grammar, grammar, grammar...

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nataraja ]

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nataraja ]</p>

Amen-Moses

When African Army Ants (or is it Soldier Ants these days) are on the move everyone, no matter how bloody superior, gets the fuck out of the way!

I suppose it may be possible to erradicate then with tactical nukes but I wouldn't bet on it.

Thankfully they seem to be content staying in a narrow environmental band and the locals have learned that they soon leave when they've eaten everything, like the curtains, carpets and the odd bit of furniture.

If the ability to erradicate marks superiority then ebola must pretty much win hands down.

Amen-Moses

Agricola Senior

I agree completely with scigirl :”…we pretty much could destroy any other species on the planet (whereas they could not purposely destroy us).”

The only kind of (proved) superiority (demonstrated many times) is that human beings are the best killers of all. And the most important consequence is our exclusive obligation to care for this planet.