Proof that humans are not animals

[Rambozo]

We are. Sequence your genome if you want.

No, we're not. I provided you with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Why did you conveniently ignore it?

Sequencing the genome doesn't matter. It merely proves that humans' physical bodies have similarities to those of animals.

It doesn't prove that they're "the same" any more than a Lamborghini is the same as a Hot Wheels car simply because they both have "four wheels".

You're also conveniently identifying humans with their physical bodies, when one's physical body isn't a significant part of what makes a person "who they are" to begin with, compared to their consciousness, which is significantly more complex to those of animals.

The hard way is to ask a pissed off bear. He'll show you how you're made of meat in a way that your advanced prefrontal cortex won't be able to refute. I don't recommend that strategy, though

An 80 IQ skinhead gang member could beat the shit out of Steven Hawking. It doesn't mean that they're "the same either".

And as far as bears are concerned, we've successfully dominated them, just as we have every other species on the planet. Their raw physical strength be damned.

 

[KingLeo]

Morals are not necessarily "norms".

For example, it's a "norm" for most people in developed countries to speak English. But there's nothing "moral" or "immoral" about speaking English or speaking any other language. It's a morally neutral thing, and simply more practical for people to speak a common language. Some things are also norms, such as heterosexuality, not because society "agrees" on them, but because they have a basis in human biology (e.x. sex is biologically related to reproduction, so most people will be hardwired to be heterosexual, while homosexuals will be a minority).

It would also be less of a norm to be a highly moral person, such as a Mother Teresa, who devotes her whole life to altruism, than it would be to merely be an "average person". (Just as it would be less of a norm to be a highly immoral person, such as a serial killer).

Likewise, there are certain intrinsic reasons why societies agree to prohibit certain behaviors to begin with. For example, the harm which rape causes to its victims can be measured, so there is a reason that rape is illegal and considered immoral, but not playing basketball. So, regardless of whether or not laws or norms have changed over time, the objective harm which rape causes a victim, such as in terms of physical or psychological pain, would still exist even if there was no law or norm prohibiting it.

Society, obviously, can also have norms which are harmful and immoral. In the Jim Crow era, for example, laws existed which allowed for the discrimination against black people, but these laws where challenged on moral grounds.

You only prove my point.
Morals are the agreed upon norms of a society at a given time and they do change.

 

[bythoughts]

And as far as bears are concerned, we've successfully dominated them, just as we have every other species on the planet. Their raw physical strength be damned.

But cats have dominated humans. Brood parasitism really does work.

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

Our brain is much more advanced in many aspects, and some people who are 'off' you could say, still rape. We have courts for that. Amazing what being civilized can do.

No telling how our long ago ancestors behaved when they were still grunting.

Trent Reznor would like a word. We are animals.

 

[Helix]

No, we're not. I provided you with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Why did you conveniently ignore it?

Sequencing the genome doesn't matter. It merely proves that humans' physical bodies have similarities to those of animals.

It doesn't prove that they're "the same" any more than a Lamborghini is the same as a Hot Wheels car simply because they both have "four wheels".

You're also conveniently identifying humans with their physical bodies, when one's physical body isn't a significant part of what makes a person "who they are" to begin with, compared to their consciousness, which is significantly more complex to those of animals.


An 80 IQ skinhead gang member could beat the shit out of Steven Hawking. It doesn't mean that they're "the same either".

And as far as bears are concerned, we've successfully dominated them, just as we have every other species on the planet. Their raw physical strength be damned.

The graveyards are full of the carefully prepared bones of animals who felt better thinking they weren't animals for decades. If that's your jam, then rock on.

 

[Mulefoot]

Polysemy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Luce]

Have I mentioned that I AM POSTING IN THIS THREAD?

 

[pragmatic]

AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

Well, dang.

This changes everything!

..

 

[lwf]

Then you'll have to refute it.

Some animals rape as a means of reproducing.

If you believed that humans were animals, then you wouldn't have a problem with rape if it allowed reproduction.

The fact that you have a problem with rape proves that humans are not animals.

Some humans don't have a problem with rape and humans can reproduce through rape. In fact, statistically speaking, it is unlikely that anyone alive today doesn't have at least one ancestor who was the product of a rape if you go back far enough.

 

[ataraxia]

No, it's just acknowledgement of reality.

There is a hierarchy of consciousness to nature. Humans have the most complex consciousness, and are at the top. Humans aren't identical to animals anymore than a supercomputer is identical to a calculator, by the mere virtue of the fact that they both "perform calculations".

And I'm curious which god is telling you that it's morally wrong for humans to think of themselves as important.

Humans are free to think of themselves however they damn well want to, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Humans likely do have better developed cerebral cortexes than other animals. But that's just a difference along a spectrum- a difference of degrees, not of kind. Your argument is kind of like saying that because bats are specialized to use echolocation, that unique trait means they are not animals.

And there are cultural differences among other species as well:
Chimpanzees exhibit cultural differences across various groups, particularly in their tool use and social rituals. These differences are rooted in learned traditions and social customs that are passed down through generations. For instance, the "grooming handclasp" varies between groups, with some grasping only fingers while others interlock entire hands. Greeting customs also differ, with some groups using exaggerated bows or extended hands, while others employ soft vocalizations or gentle touches. These cultural practices highlight the complexity of chimpanzee social customs and the influence of shared traditions on their social structures.

Inverse
https://www.inverse.com/science/unexpected-cultural-diversity-found-in-groups-of-chimps

 

[tharock220]

Humans are heterotrophic eukaryotes.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

If you are willing to believe in made up crap, it's easy to spew made up crap.

 

[ataraxia]

AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

Forced copulation has indeed been observed in chimpanzees and a few other primates, but it’s not common across the primate order. The main reason is that it usually isn’t a very good reproductive strategy. In most primate groups, females have a lot of control over who they mate with, and they often form alliances with dominant males or other females. A male who tries to force himself risks retaliation, not just from the female but also from her allies, which can damage his social standing and hurt his chances of reproducing in the long run. It’s also dangerous—females fight back, and an unsuccessful attempt can leave the male severely injured. Since primate survival and long-term reproductive opportunities matter more than any single mating, the costs of coercion often outweigh the benefits.


On top of that, in species where males sometimes commit infanticide, females use a strategy of mating with multiple partners to confuse paternity and reduce the risk that any one male will kill their infant. Forced copulation works against this system, so a male who gains a reputation for coercion may actually lower his chances of having his offspring protected. Other strategies, like grooming, sharing food, building coalitions, or climbing the dominance hierarchy, tend to be far more effective and reliable ways to secure mates. That’s why across most primates, sexual coercion is rare—it’s simply a poor evolutionary tactic compared to cooperation and social bonding.

 

[ataraxia]

Humans, objectively, have the most complex consciousness of any creature that we know of. To the point that we can question our existence and classify ourselves and other creatures as one thing or another.

So cheetahs, objectively, have the fastest running speed of any land animal. Does that make them NOT animals?

 

[ataraxia]

No, we're not. Maslow's hierarchy of needs debunks this.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a motivational theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow. It organizes human needs into five levels: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Often visualized as a pyramid, this hierarchy suggests that human motivation...

www.simplypsychology.org

View attachment 67585602

Presumably, animals only have physiological needs, such as survival and reproduction.

In humans, on the other hand, these needs are merely at the very bottom of the hierarchy, with needs such as self-actualization being much higher.

A dog who has been fed will be more playful, and will prefer a softer bed to sleep on. That's going up Maslow's heirarchy. Does that mean dogs aren't animals either?

 

[KingLeo]

Humans are heterotrophic eukaryotes.

As are all animals.

 

[HonestJoe]

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

Plenty of other animals don't engage in "rape" for various reasons too. Some are life-long monogamous for example. Different species having different social behaviours is not relevant to the biological definition of animal.

That doesn't mean you can't make an argument for humans being a different, or even fundamentally better, kind of animal. You don't need to deny that we're still animals to do that though.

Anyway, loads of humans apparently don't consider rape wrong, which is why it happens so much. Human societies have introduced laws or rules against rape (and other crimes), but that is as much about the broader development of human society where those who aren't physically dominant found ways to control those who are. Also, such laws and rules haven't been the standard throughout human history, and arguably haven't really been until relatively recently, and even then not everywhere. For example, when was marital rape criminalised in your country (if it has been at all)?

 

[Lursa]

Nope, that's false.

Zoology is an arbitrary system of classification, which groups living things into categories based on their biological similarities.

So then it's not "arbitrary."

But simply because human bodies have biological similarities with the bodies of creatures such as chimpanzees, does not mean they have to be classified as animals, or

Genetic similarities.

why completely different systems of classification can't be invented altogether.

For what purpose? We classify organisms for various purposes. What purpose would your "reclassification system" serve?

 

[tharock220]

As are all animals.

Humans are also lobe finned fish.

 

[iguanaman]

AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

This is a fail in so many ways it is hard to list them all. First there are the Bonobo Chimpanzees who have a matriarchal society where the female are the more dominant gender. They also share the same 99% of human DNA and appear to have a much more human like society.
Bonobos are unusual among apes for their matriarchal social structure (extensive overlap between the male and female hierarchies leads some to refer to them as gender-balanced in their power structure). Bonobos do not have a defined territory and communities will travel over a wide range. Because of the nomadic nature of the females and evenly distributed food in their environment, males do not gain any obvious advantages by forming alliances with other males, or by defending a home range, as chimpanzees do. Female bonobos possess sharper canines than female chimpanzees, further fueling their status in the group. Although a male bonobo is dominant to a female in a dyadic interaction, depending on the community, socially-bonded females may be co-dominant with males or dominant over them, even to the extent that females can coerce reluctant males into mating with them.

Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. A male derives his status from the status of his mother. The mother–son bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, and although the son of a high ranking female may outrank a lower female, rank plays a less prominent role than in other primate societies. Relationships between different communities are often positive and affiliative, and bonobos are not a territorial species. Bonobos will also share food with others, even unrelated strangers. Bonobos exhibit paedomorphism (retaining infantile physical characteristics and behaviours), which greatly inhibits aggression and enables unfamiliar bonobos to freely mingle and cooperate with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Also you have no idea (and no one does) how humans behaved 50,000 years ago. We do have the meme that cave men clubbed women they desired over the head and took them and that may well be how they behaved in many societies. Human are evolved apes and there is no doubt about it. That certainly makes us animals.

 

[Anagram]

AI Overview

View attachment 67585601
Male chimpanzees frequently use physical aggression and violence to sexually coerce females, with studies showing this behavior increases their chances of mating and siring offspring. This aggression can involve brutal attacks, hair pulling, and forceful separation to control female sexuality and limit their mating options with other males. While female chimpanzees try to mitigate this by mating with multiple males to create paternal uncertainty, male coercion can significantly influence female choice and reproductive success.

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

Can you provide the definition of the word “animal” that you are using that would exclude humans?

Can you also explain why this semantics issue actually matters? What does it really change substantively if the word “animal” covers humans or not? Humans still have all of their characteristics and chimpanzees still have all of their characteristics whether they are encompassed by the word “animal” or not.

 

[Rambozo]

It's pretty simple.

Zoology is an arbitrary system of classification invented by humans.

It groups things into categories based on similarities, such as the physical similarities between humans and other animals. However, humans' physical bodies are not the most significant part of what makes them who they are to begin with. Our consciousness is a far more significant defining feature.

Just as I could arbitrary create a category of things that have "4 wheels", and put a hot wheels car and a Lamborghini into the same category, simply because they both have "four wheels".

But that, of course, would not mean that a Lamborghini and a hot wheels are "the same", or couldn't be placed into other categories which draw distinctions between the two, such as how a Lamborghini has an astronomically higher horsepower than a hot wheels car.

 

[ataraxia]

It's pretty simple.

Zoology is an arbitrary system of classification invented by humans.

It groups things into categories based on similarities, such as the physical similarities between humans and other animals. However, humans' physical bodies are not the most significant part of what makes them who they are to begin with. Our consciousness is a far more significant defining feature.

Just as I could arbitrary create a category of things that have "4 wheels", and put a hot wheels car and a Lamborghini into the same category, simply because they both have "four wheels".

But that, of course, would not mean that a Lamborghini and a hot wheels are "the same", or couldn't be placed into other categories which draw distinctions between the two, such as how a Lamborghini has an astronomically higher horsepower than a hot wheels car.

This is an interesting talk by a primatologist and neurobiologist, talking about behavioral similarities and differences between humans and other primates. Would recommend. Very insightful:

 

[Rambozo]

The graveyards are full of the carefully prepared bones of animals who felt better thinking they weren't animals for decades. If that's your jam, then rock on.

It's pretty simple.

Classifying humans as animals based on biological similarities is simply something you insist on doing, for a reason you probably don't even know yourself. Like, if I insist that everything with 4 wheels be put into the same category, when the objective reality is that things could be classified a potentially infinite number of ways based on an infinite number of similar or different traits.

So, no matter how much you insist that it's "wrong" to call a Lamborghini a Lamborghini, and insist that I call it a "4-wheeled thing" instead, it's not going to change the objective reality that a Lamborghini is remarkably different than a hot wheels car.

Just as it's not going to change the reality that human consciousness has remarkably higher levels of needs than do those of animals, which presumably only have physiological needs.

 

[Visbek]

AI Overview

You just made a thread claiming that no one should believe in science, because they didn't perform ~500 years of experiments on their own.

And now, you're quoting an unspecified AI to dispute a basic scientific fact?

While we may share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, chimpanzees engage in mating behavior which would be consider "rape" if humans engaged in it, and rightfully be viewed as repulsive, even if it allowed someone to reproduce.

Merriam-Webster definition of "animal:"

Any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (such as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (such as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

Did you notice how that doesn't include the phrase "must engage in coercive sexual behavior" ?

If humans were animals, then we would not have a problem with rape if it allowed a member of the species to reproduce and succeed at natural selection.

The fact that we value moral sentiments, such as "rape being wrong" more than we value biological impulses, such as the drive to reproduce, proves that humans are not animals.

First, yes humans are considered to be moral agents, and animals are not. That doesn't change the scientific facts that a) humans are in fact part of the Animal kingdom and b) humans evolved from other animal species.

Next: Oddly enough, humans don't stop being humans when they engage in rape, or even when they condone rape. Odd how your "theory" can't quite handle that.

And if you're into Doing Your Own Research, Dale Peterson wrote a book titled The Moral Lives of Animals. Maybe you ought to read it one of these days.