Humans are animals

Wysiwyg · 2 September 2007

These guys have not got guns or nuclear missiles but are pound for pound one of the most "progessed" species on the planet.

weird · 2 September 2007

Unfortunately, somewhere in the world, you will probably find them all on a menu, that menu printed on paper, from a mill, in a restaurant where the humans are sitting on a chair with a table manufactured from a factory. The humans are reading that menu in a room with sufficient lighting, supplied by electricity, with a nice bottle of wine from a vineyard. And when they go to the crappa and wash their hands, it will have running water .... etc .. etc ... the only counter-argument I can see coming, from my own tasteless comment, is perhaps did humans kill off any potential species that could have possible produced anything similar ... nipped them in the bud so to speak ... don't know .. anyhow the Darwinists would say this was natural selection ... still a pretty big gap.

Wysiwyg · 2 September 2007

weird said:
Unfortunately, somewhere in the world, you will probably find them all on a menu, that menu printed on paper, from a mill, in a restaurant where the humans are sitting on a chair with a table manufactured from a factory. The humans are reading that menu in a room with sufficient lighting, supplied by electricity, with a nice bottle of wine from a vineyard. And when they go to the crappa and wash their hands, it will have running water .... etc .. etc ... the only counter-argument I can see coming, from my own tasteless comment, is perhaps did humans kill off any potential species that could have possible produced anything similar ... nipped them in the bud so to speak ... don't know .. anyhow the Darwinists would say this was natural selection ... still a pretty big gap.

Howdy....you must be weird.

The physique of human makes him vulnerable to other animals.Without mind (thought) human numbers would be small, if not extinct.
Macropods have become extinct through human domination ...again Wik.

Macropods are marsupials belonging to the family Macropodidae, which includes kangaroos, wallabies, tree-kangaroos, pademelons, and several others. Before European settlement, there were about 53 species of Macropods. Today, six species have since become extinct. Another 11 species have been greatly reduced in numbers. Other species (e.g. Simothanurus, Propleopus, Macropus titan) went extinct after the Australian Aborigines arrived and before Europeans arrived.

I suppose another question would be does any human being have a right to any piece of earth.Apart from "I was here first "(at least I think I was)

weird · 2 September 2007

Wysiwyg, did not understand your question or comment ... are you giving macropods as an example of a possible species we nipped in the bud ?

No argument presented "we were here first so therefore etc", the exact opposite ... I guess another argument, playing the advocat, could be putting it another way ... from an 'animal' perspective ... considering the original question thread ... could it be any other way ... positioning one shelf in the food chain, and all

Wysiwyg · 2 September 2007

No worries weird...just thinking out allowed (f-slip).

This is an example of intelligent man.(while we mess up the basics of nature)

Problem
You are calculating a complex formula in Lotus ® Spreadsheets and your formula returns "#VALUE!" in the cell in which you expect a value of 0 (zero).

This is the formula that renders #VALUE!:

=IF(AND(I34="";J34="");ROUND((G34)-7.6-(0.2*$G$3);1);
IF(OR((AND((OR(I34=51;I34=205));J34=""));(AND((OR(J34=51;J34=205));I34="")));
ROUND((G34)-3.8-(0.1*$G$3);1);0))

Solution
This issue was reported to Quality Engineering as SPR# DLYN7584ET. You can work around this issue by manually inputting 0 (zero) into the blank field(s) in the problem formula.

Ageo · 2 September 2007

How did we get from humans are animals to lotus spreadsheets?

lol

2020hindsight · 2 September 2007

Ageo said:
How did we get from humans are animals to lotus spreadsheets? lol

gee ageo, tough call.
maybe that's called lateral thinking ??

maybe because the spreadsheet is a picture into the calculating ability of the human mind?

I would have thought that the fact that humans can think a problem through without blinkers as well - to have a bit of fun with the topic?

in fact you could ask the question "is lateral thinking like this a difference between men and animals"

examples of animals thinking laterally - heaps there as well .....

foals, lambs and youngsters of most species spend most of their day horsing around (amazes me that a beautifully playful lamb grows up to be a boring bloody sheep)

otters spend most of their day exercising their sense of humour

then again, killer whales will play with a young seal before killing it and - sometimes they even put it back on the beach.

cats will play with a mouse during a long drawn out death etc etc

summary - another blind alley in the search for a difference between men and "other animals" (IMO)

I thought Bloveld was on the money as well - when he said that "animals are beasts, men are monsters" - because , men do cruel things DESPITE education campaigns - despite international whaling watchdogs etc -
DESPITE THE FACT that we ALL know that WE are directly causing the EXTINCTION of many of them !!

but (apart from a handful of domesticated animals, (dogs ), other animals are generally out of any human "educational" influence - 'cept maybe for circus tricks - they have an excuse to be "beasts" - and (given that they have to eat) - to take their natural place in a cruel life chain

Sean K · 2 September 2007

Ageo said:
How did we get from humans are animals to lotus spreadsheets?

lol

If we are just animals, is being 'spritual' just some type of awe that we have for our environment due to our advanced mental capacity.

A lack of complete understanding of the complex workings of the universe and it's origin holds us in awe, wonder, and amazment at its functioning.

But, do we have any more than a physical connection to our environment?

Or, is that just our brain inventing things and jumping to conclusions that are not sound?

If we have a non physical connection to the planet, does that make us different to other animals?

Once again however, I am lumping the debate into a them verses us discussion, but each animal has it's own unique capacities and capabilites also. I wonder if a bird looks down at humans and thinks we are a pretty average species because we can't fly?

Julia · 2 September 2007

Wysiwyg said:
The varying degrees of intellect/awareness via education.Does the more intelligent human make a better (righteous) decision than the human with less intellect.Are the intellectuals/smarter people making the right choices?

Perpetrators of wrongs (infringing on others) come from all degrees of intelligence/awareness so I don`t think that , although having the capacity , is the reason.What do you think?

Animals don`t use words.

I wasn't at all suggesting that more intelligent people make better decisions.
What I was distinguishing was that human beings with the aforementioned intellect/awareness/education have the capacity to make reasoned and therefore more constructive decisions than animals who on the whole function more on the basis of instinct.
As to whether more intelligent/educated people do make "better" decisions I doubt very much that that would necessarily be true. Some people with pretty average intelligence and minimal education display great integrity and have an uncluttered set of principles which are blessedly devoid of cunning and manipulation.

2020hindsight · 2 September 2007

Ageo said:
Also if we are animals then why are we the only kind of animals that can advance through time?

I mean there are so many different animal species on this earth yet only us human animals have the ability to progress??

shame we're not "progressing a bit slower" lol
ever considered we might be heading in the wrong direction ??

one thing IS for sure - while man is "progressing", . the prospects for other animals is "regressing" !

yonnie · 2 September 2007

Julia said:
So in many ways, an animal, e.g. dog, etc, is more pure with its lack of malevolence, cunning, competitiveness, bellicosity, or other ugly human traits.

I dont agree with you Julia; I believe animals also have these traits.

Ever heard of kids in hospital after being bitten by dogs without provocation?
Ever heard of horse racing and hear trainers say my horse is very competitive?

Had a dog myself from a puppy and after biting people 3x I destroyed it. Must have had a rough upbringing!

Ageo · 2 September 2007

2020hindsight said:
shame we're not "progressing a bit slower" lol
ever considered we might be heading in the wrong direction ??

Regardless if we are heading in the wrong direction or not the point is Humans have the ability to progress. Animals are doing the same thing they were doing 100yrs ago.

Sure they might goto different waterholes, or get their feed from somewhere else but in the end unless a human can teach a dog or any other animal new tricks they will never increase their advancement through time. i.e A Buffalo 100 yrs from now will still behave the same way as he did 100yrs ago.

Humans wont

Sean K · 2 September 2007

Ageo said:
Regardless if we are heading in the wrong direction or not the point is Humans have the ability to progress. Animals are doing the same thing they were doing 100yrs ago.

This is an interesting point Ageo.

In regard to animals, they probably are 'progressing' through natural selection, but we have only been witness to 3000 years (or only 100 ish perhaps if we take it from the time of Darwinist Revelation) of the 14 billion ish years of development. So, things have time to move...

In regard to humans progressing, just the hell where are we going as a 'species'? Are we going to halt our natural development through science and medicine which is effectively halting the process of natural selection. Or, is science taking into consideration the process and simply fast tracking it? Add to that the future input of computers and robotics, and what effect they are going to have on the 'human'. We'll all have voice activated chips in our head soon that do all the functions of a computer and mobile, and perhaps down the track, even cameras may be inserted to become a third eye.

2020hindsight · 2 September 2007

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198186&highlight=beasts#post198186

excerpts from a poem just posted...

ARE HUMANS BEASTS ? - (any offence to the other beasts, although probable , is unintended)

I take it that we all agree, all animals have traits
but just to various degrees – which ? - varsity or fate?
and bully bear – or bully person – more depends on weight
than which is “beast” or “worst”, or praps, which one is Satan’s mate.

.............

you search the traits of this small world, the “traitors” carved in granite
you’ll see how much God screwed up / erred - when he chose the world to "man-it"
you watch "the Planet of the Apes", which God has “boy-and-girled”
...
which other creature first pack rapes - and then PACK RAPES THE WORLD. ?

Julia · 2 September 2007

kennas said:
So, Julia are you assuming animals can be 'spiritual' too? Or, that we are animals, but a particularly developed animal that has the ability to think there must be a reason? It's just a brain development issue....]?

Kennas, as I alluded to earlier, I have some difficulty with the word 'spiritual' because it commonly has connotations of connection with a God/faith/religion.But I've failed to come up with something better. No, I don't suppose animals have this capacity. But to argue this entire question wouldn't we have to solve the dilemma where many human beings entirely reject any notion of spirituality? So possibly they would say that this concept is something created by human beings to make their lives more meaningful. But that's getting side-tracked into the whole religion thing.

On the second point above, this is one of the arguments that has led me to think that we may be able to be altruistic.

Or, could this innate, instinctive response be programmed in as a human survival mechanism. Like when we touch something hot, we don't consciously think 'shet! I better move my hand away from that', and then tell our arms to move our hands to move our fingers away. Perhaps running into the burning house is an extention of that? Fight or flight?

I see where you are going with that, but doesn't the fight or flight mechanism relate just to the self, i.e. it's a device to ensure our survival.
It seems somewhat of a stretch to apply that to what I believe is the altruistic action of going into a burning house to save another person.

Not sure why you are having such trouble in believing in altruism???
There seems to be an increasing trend in our society towards self-flagellation, i.e. repetitive mutterings about all the harm we do etc.
I wonder if there isn't more capital to be derived from the opposite, e.g. some positive reinforcement of what we do well?
Sorry if this is off the track again.

Julia · 2 September 2007

yonnie said:
I dont agree with you Julia; I believe animals also have these traits.

Ever heard of kids in hospital after being bitten by dogs without provocation?
Ever heard of horse racing and hear trainers say my horse is very competitive?

Had a dog myself from a puppy and after biting people 3x I destroyed it. Must have had a rough upbringing!

You might be right, yonnie, in some instances. My comment was a generalisation. I doubt that too many kids do in fact get bitten without provocation. Usually when this happens the kid has done something which has irritated the dog who has reacted instinctively, e.g. the kid has stuck a pencil in its ear etc. The dog is just trying to protect itself.

Re horses being competitive, I guess they might be or perhaps they are responding to their training and - given the bond between trainer and horse - keen to please the trainer. Dunno.

However, I'm sure you nonetheless haven't failed to get the point I was making in general terms. There will always be some animals which, whether because of their genes or their handling (as you've quoted above yourself) don't have a place amongst people. But the same can be said of people.

2020hindsight · 2 September 2007

Ageo said:
Regardless if we are heading in the wrong direction or not the point is Humans have the ability to progress. Animals are doing the same thing they were doing 100yrs ago.

But Ageo, lol - men and apes were all doing the same thing 4 billion years ago - lol - like, our grandaddies and grandmummies were all swishing around in a swamp together - and futhermore, we're all still evolving . You'll have to widen the discussion a bit before you can draw any conculsions about "we're different from them " - I mean it goes back more than 100 years btw, Quartar is when man appeared = 17 seconds to midnight

we all became amphibious 300 million years ago
mammals common but small about 200 million years ago
Evolution of anatomically modern humans about 1.8 million years (Pleistocene)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=158576&highlight=pleistocene#post158576

http://www.worldhistory-poster.com/en/screenshots/science-evolution/origin_of_man.png/view . This evolutionary line is anthropocentric : man is placed in the centre, although he is not necessarily the end of evolution. In reality, evolution is not a ladder on which man is at the top. Man is, along with other species, only one branch of an evolutionary family tree that goes back to the first forms of life, about 4 billion years ago.

http://www.worldhistory-poster.com/en/screenshots/science-evolution/early_evolution.gif/view . The question of spontaneous biogenesis, whether chemical processes have brought about life out of non-life, is not in scientific doubt anymore. The discussion is about which of the many conceiveable ways may have led to the first cellular organisation. Chemical evolution: survival of the stablest structures led to the emergence of more complex molecules such as RNA and DNA. A remarkable property of these molecules is their ability to replicate, as well as their information-carrying character, allowing them to build organized structures using the process of protein synthesis. Those complexes were actually minute chemical factories surrounded by a cell membrane. The first type of cell that could reproduce was born. First type of cell = RNA + DNA + cell membrane + protein synthesis + reproduction. ”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” Written and supervised by: Prof. Dr. Gustaaf Cornelis (logician and philosopher of science), Ronny Martens (astronomer), Tim Trachet (mathematician), Prof. Dr. Jean Paul Van Bendegem (logician, mathematician and philosopher of science), Prof. Dr. Walter Verraes (biologist), ”””””””””””” © 2001 Tom Schoepen, http://www.worldhistorytimeline.net

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/a...tion.htm#Understanding_Species_and_Speciation etc

nioka · 2 September 2007

springhill said:
U should think more carefully before u go pointing the finger nioka, dont judge me or cast assumptions about the people i associate with, none by the way who are crims or anything of the sort. As i have not pointed the finger at any one person. You have personalised your post
Unless the people u speak of have never uttered a bad word about anyone or thought a bad thought, let alone the things we conciously do everyday that we pass off as 'human nature'. They sound like angels re-incarnated
If i chose to i could find your post extremely offensive, lucky my skin is thicker than that.
your point of the rogue dog is invalid as it knows no better
compare that to a human that indiscriminatly kills 2,4,10 people
which is the worse act?
and why?

It was you who pointed the finger by saying "we" this and that. I happen to believe that if you say we you include yourself . Have more faith in the goodness of the average person. Some people are worse than animals but it is the exception rather than the rule.

So_Cynical · 2 September 2007

'spiritual' is just religion without the rules
just make up any stuff u want.

no gods
no meaning
no purpose
no "higher calling"
no destiny

we are animals
is it really that hard to believe.

wayneL · 2 September 2007

So_Cynical said:
'spiritual' is just religion without the rules
just make up any stuff u want.

no gods
no meaning
no purpose
no "higher calling"
no destiny

we are animals
is it really that hard to believe.

Depends on the use of the word "spiritual", as Julia discusses.

But you do have something in common with the Catholic Church... Dogma.

Cheers

Humans are animals

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

weird

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

weird

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

Ageo

2020hindsight

Sean K

Moderator

Julia

In Memoriam

2020hindsight

yonnie

Ageo

Sean K

Moderator

2020hindsight

Julia

In Memoriam

Julia

In Memoriam

2020hindsight

Attachments

nioka

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Humans are animals

Everyone wants money

Everyone wants money

Everyone wants money

Moderator

In Memoriam

Moderator

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Attachments

The Contrarian Averager

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency