Is Anthropocentrism Justified?

[jammieg]

What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by jammieg
What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

Well, in billions and billions of years, they might...just not in their present state.

I think what it comes down to is evolutionary pressure...as populations grow, competition becomes greater, and each species has to have its own 'trick' to survive. Brain-power is the path humans took, but it is no more or less impressive than some of the other incredible adaptations that animals and plants have arrived at.

 

[THANOS]

What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

heh. Well a probably 500 years ago we humans didn't seem like we will ever go in space and land on a moon. Hell even then is when our world was flat. All it takes is one simple idea that will make life easier for your species. Like tools.

 

[Royce]

I think Zero is right as far as he goes (I can't tell you how hard this is for both of us to actually agree so much on any subject). Our brains developed as a survival tactic under environmental pressure. We had little else to rely on. We as a species are physically rather ill equiped for survival. The more brains we had, the smarter and more adaptable and clever that we were, the better we were at surviving.
I think we were pushed beyond a threshold. Our intelligence, adaptability, tool making and language all fed and supported one another causing our brains to develope these talents even further unit we went over the top and became Homo sapiens.
From there through trade and communication, by passing along and passing down information our knowledge grew and continued to grow at a nonlinear if not expotentional rate.
The smarter we became the more able were we at surviving. The more knowledge we gathered the more we were able to gather more. It soon went way beyound survival.
One idea or piece of knowledge builds on another and poses even more problems to be solved. There was a PBS series a number of years ago with David Attenburough (sp?) named "Connections." In it he showed how one technilogical and/or scientific breakthrough or development lead to others that lead to even more advancement.
In many ways its surprising that we are not further along than we are. We are continously stepping through new thresholds and entering new eras. We cannot keep up with the advances and developements we are making now. We do not even know yet how to best apply the scientific data and technology that we have available now. Our only limits are energy, money and time. Which direction do we take? What new world will that lead to? I used to wonder what my grandmother thought of the world and how it had changed from 1900 to the 1980's. Now I think back from when I was born in 1942 to what has happened in my lifetime. Try to imagine what the world will be like for you people in your twenties forty years from now at the rate of growth and advancement increasing every generation.
Yet we are still animals and all of the same life form that is interdependent and mutually supporting.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Forgive me, Me, quoting myself
. Hummm, your opinion, you seem to miss the "orders of magnitude" of addition to human history (what the monkeys cannot share amongst themselves is their history) that is what arises as "you", and all of what you know from all of what has been collectively learned in humanities history, and how that shapes you, enourmously different from any other animal.

You are proving my point, all of the words, letters, paragraphs, accumulations of knowledge~expressed!

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You are proving my point, all of the words, letters, paragraphs, accumulations of knowledge~expressed!

From your view point, yes, I agree that I am proving your point.
Our point, however, is that such accumulations of knowledge is possible only because of a trait that differs only in degree from similar traits of lower animals; and, hense, the term "lower animals" is not a proper term. We think that your point is that this trait is different in type and separate from any and all traits held by lower animals; and, thus, the term "lower animals" is valid.
This, I think, is the point of disagreement and discussion. Other than this fine and possibly irrelavent point, I think, we all agree.
I, if not we, feel that this very piont of mankind being separate from and different from the rest of life on Earth is a damaging and dangerous as well as wrong viewpoint. It has led to the religious idea that man was created separate from and to rule and use and abuse the world and life as he sees fit in the short term despite the long term effects it may have.
On the other hand if we adopt the "one world one life form" paradigm then it hopefully will lead to a more knowledgeble and responsible stewardship of the world and all of life.

 

[Zero]

The main issue, as I see it right now, is that we decide that 'human' is the standard, and judge all other animals by that standard...conveniently ignoring the places where other animals have us beat.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
I, if not we, feel that this very piont of mankind being separate from and different from the rest of life on Earth is a damaging and dangerous as well as wrong viewpoint. It has led to the religious idea that man was created separate from and to rule and use and abuse the world and life as he sees fit in the short term despite the long term effects it may have.
On the other hand if we adopt the "one world one life form" paradigm then it hopefully will lead to a more knowledgeble and responsible stewardship of the world and all of life.

Why do you decide that this is a "religious idea", as opposed to a very human activity/practise.

"One life form" you mean like the vegetables? cause they are alive too!

Aside, it is a danger to ignore our ability, and difference, that willfully being ignorant of the difference is a greater danger than trying to pretend that we are NOT radically different in our collective enablements.

As for "The degree of difference" is it possible that because of the current, and ongoing, (since your birth) inundantion of information, distractive noise, knowledge, talk, words, language usage, you have simply lost the relative respect for just what language is, and does?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Why do you decide that this is a "religious idea", as opposed to a very human activity/practise.

I think that I meant to say that it leads to the Judeo-christian idea among others,i.e. that man was created to have dominion over all the world. It is apperantly a very human activity/practric, anthrocentricity. (Is that the word I want?)

"One life form" you mean like the vegetables? cause they are alive too!

Yes, vegetables too. We eat and gain nurishment from veggies, share DNA, etc. Bacteria have been gene spliced to produce human insulin that diabetics such as myself inject to stay alive. Isn't this proof that we are of the same life form if not related.

Aside, it is a danger to ignore our ability, and difference, that willfully being ignorant of the difference is a greater danger than trying to pretend that we are NOT radically different in our collective enablements.

I am neither ignoring nor ignorant of the vast differences between mankind and the "lower animals and life forms." I am pointing out that there are equally vast differences between other families, kindoms, whatever and that the differences are of DEGREE not KIND.

As for "The degree of difference" is it possible that because of the current, and ongoing, (since your birth) inundantion of information, distractive noise, knowledge, talk, words, language usage, you have simply lost the relative respect for just what language is, and does?

Not hardly. In this and other threads in other posts I have stated that, IMO, language has been as much a cause, driver, of our advancement,evolution, as it has been a result of our evolution and advancement as a species. Language, the complexity of it, our use of it and the way we use it, may be the one thing that really distinguishes humankind from the rest of the animals and life on earth.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
And an ego makes us superior?!?

That's exactly the opposite of my point. I said that anyone who says that one animal (including humans, obviously) is "better than" (or "superior to") another has missed the point of Darwinian evolution entirely.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
The main issue, as I see it right now, is that we decide that 'human' is the standard, and judge all other animals by that standard...conveniently ignoring the places where other animals have us beat.

This is a very important point, in light of a new thread, that I have started myself. Zero is absolutely right that to judge people against the human standard is wrong, since it ignores where they have us beat. I add to that (as per the aforementioned thread) that most all (if not all) other animals are more successful than Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Also, all the debate about what "separates" us from other animals centers on our abilities that give us tremendous power. If our great power is what justifies calling us superior and doing what we want with others, then the 3rd reich was for a time superior and justified in killing all those millions.

Excellent point, and very eloquently written, Dan.

It really doesn't require that I add anything at all, but there is a point that I wanted to mention that is along the lines of what you are saying. Anyone who's seen The Matrix: Reloaded should see the folly in saying "I have power over this or that, simply because I can destroy it whenever I wish". Dan used the term "power" in this light, and demonstrated how it is fallacious to assume that "power" makes us "better"; but I also wish to point out that the "power" itself is an illusion. Remember, if we destroy everything, we destroy ourselves (much like in the The Matrix: Reloaded with regard to the machines), which is in no way a "victory" for us, and thus we are powerless, if we define "power" as the ability to destroy.

This was also touched on by Ghandi, when he talked about the philosophy of Satyagraha, which strengthened the people, since it exposed the utter lack of "power" that the English had, inspite of their confidence in their "power" (ability to destroy). Ghandi showed that, if the English were to destroy them completely, they would have no people to call their new "property"...there would be no "losers" and thus no "winners".

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So at this point I would like to point out that I can go to the Queensu librarie's reading room, pick out anyone of "several tens" of magazines, (Trade, science, bio, journals, ect. ect.) start reading, and learn something new, for every sigle day of the rest of my life, you too!

I find the comparison/analogy of the "just a 'step up' in another computer program" as being like comparing the plastic "model" of an M1 A1 Abrahms Tank, to a 'model' of the real thing, no comparison!

It is a danger for us to not recognize that we have (Currently) 'Dominion of the Earth', as that is something that, we have, that the rest of the Animals do NOT, responcibilities!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So at this point I would like to point out that I can go to the Queensu librarie's reading room, pick out anyone of "several tens" of magazines, (Trade, science, bio, journals, ect. ect.) start reading, and learn something new, for every sigle day of the rest of my life, you too!

I find the comparison/analogy of the "just a 'step up' in another computer program" as being like comparing the plastic "model" of an M1 A1 Abrahms Tank, to a 'model' of the real thing, no comparison!

It is a danger for us to not recognize that we have (Currently) 'Dominion of the Earth', as that is something that, we have, that the rest of the Animals do NOT, responcibilities!

But we have imposed those responsibilites on ourselves. Remember what I said before, we just happen to be the only animals that have egos. A sense of responsibility is probably just our way of compensating for not being able to "fit in" comfortably with the rest of the world like the rest of the Animal Kingdom does.

Basically, what you call an advantage (responsibility over the rest of the world) is really just our (imperfect) compensation for being a destructive species by nature.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Royce Language, the complexity of it, our use of it and the way we use it, may be the one thing that really distinguishes humankind from the rest of the animals and life on earth.

I can't agree with you more. The ability to name objects and concepts, and to refer to them and discuss them when they are not in our presence, to engage in sophisticated mental modeling by means of language, truly distinguishes us from animals.

You might enjoy reading Seeing Voices by Oliver Sacks, a book about deafness parts of which discuss the truly powerless situation of deaf people in the past before the development of widely used sign languages.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
But we have imposed those responsibilites on ourselves. Remember what I said before, we just happen to be the only animals that have egos. A sense of responsibility is probably just our way of compensating for not being able to "fit in" comfortably with the rest of the world like the rest of the Animal Kingdom does.
Basically, what you call an advantage (responsibility over the rest of the world) is really just our (imperfect) compensation for being a destructive species by nature.

And just how do you go about deciding that all of the rest of the animals don't have 'egos'??, how do you prove that one?

"Respocibility" is meant in it's simplest understanding, it is an Ideal.

Animals still behave responcibly, they just don't talk about it, and work out 'what is the most responcible path', they have no need to!

 

[jammieg]

I agree and think it could be considered both religious or human, or the human tendency to want a definitive religious certainty.

Well I was going to say imagination was probably the most important thing we had going for us, I mean what else could drive someone to study bees for 40 years and win a noble prize, whereas most of us would say that was quite mad I'm sure he was delighted the whole time because he choose to make it an adventure by turning on his imagination to long analytical study of something that wasn't really that big of a deal but then who knows until one does it, to me he won the noble prize by demonstrating that we humans are crazy and could turn anything we want it to a passion and adventure with the deliberate use of imagination, almost as if to imagine a thing is to fire up and stimulate the neurons themselves to grow, in effect turn whatever we choose into something enjoyable, no other animal seems to freak out about and be able to make such a big deal out of such trivial things as we do, but in the process who knows what one gems one may find if a person could spend 40 years on bees, then who knows what depths of knowledge might lie in such seemingly mundane things as Bruce Lee's fixation with physical speed and adaptability and formlessness...I wonder what he was talking about...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And just how do you go about deciding that all of the rest of the animals don't have 'egos'??, how do you prove that one?

Because none of them has ever declared itself superior. If this happens, I will consider that member of that species egotistical, but not necessarily the entire species (though I would concede that they all had "egos"). It is only after many of the species subscribe to such an arrogance that I will conclude that the species itself is egotistical.

"Respocibility" is meant in it's simplest understanding, it is an Ideal.

Exactly, and no animal but Homo Sapiens has any knowledge of that Ideal, since no other animal needs it (no other species is as destructive, and thus they have infinitely less to be "responsible" for).

Animals...

You mean "other animals", don't you?

still behave responcibly, they just don't talk about it, and work out 'what is the most responcible path', they have no need to!

No, they don't, because they don't have our enormous disadvantage of being destructive creatures by nature.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Because none of them has ever declared itself superior. If this happens, I will consider that member of that species egotistical, but not necessarily the entire species (though I would concede that they all had "egos"). It is only after many of the species subscribe to such an arrogance that I will conclude that the species itself is egotistical.
Hummm, has never seen a Great Ape Beating it's own chest, a demonstration of EgO(?) Oh and BTW not all humans are Egotistical, either!
Exactly, and no animal but Homo Sapiens has any knowledge of that Ideal, Humm, kinda makes us special, don't you think?? since no other animal needs it (no other species is as destructive, and thus they have infinitely less to be "responsible" for).
You mean "other animals", don't you?
No, they don't, because they don't have our enormous disadvantage of being destructive creatures by nature. By Nature?? don't you mean by choice, as that is what our advantage is, we get to choose, they, "the rest of the animals", don't!

 

[mikelus]

whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us. Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us.

All the animals that can eat people still manage to do it in this day and age. In India and Southast Asia, people still get eaten by tigers. Divers and snorkelers disappear when there are great whites around. Grizzley bears have killed and eaten humans. Anyone who dies without being embalmed or cremated gets eaten by insects and bacteria.

Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

I don't think the food chain is a good representation of people's superior power. More important is our ability to seize and control huge amounts of territory for our own purposes. The main difference still boils down to our use of language: Gorillas still don't use the internet.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Zero
Most of the things pointed out are mere differences in degree, which is no justification for saying that humans are anything more than just another animal. We humans are better at the things that make us human, but those qualities do not make us different or better than other animals. I am a better guitarist than I am a football player, but it doesn't make me superior to or qualitatively different from an NFL player. Other animals are uniquely suited for their niche, as are humans...but that doesn't make us any less of a member of the animal kingdom.

You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hummm, has never seen a Great Ape Beating it's own chest, a demonstration of EgO(?)

It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).

Oh and BTW not all humans are Egotistical, either!

But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

By Nature?? don't you mean by choice, as that is what our advantage is, we get to choose, they, "the rest of the animals", don't!

If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us. Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

And that so-called "power" is our own greatest threat...we have no advantage that does not come with a greater or equal disadvantage.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.

Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.


Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).
But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.

A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at..." fill in the blank/language (which equals a lot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at..." fill in the blank/language (which equals a lot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.

Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. Yes you can, but it would be a lie! So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.

It is in human history that we have very successfully co-existed with the environment.

So you seem to think that birds are better a flying then Humans, you mean 'like' as a natural function of corporeal being, cause Humans IS WAAAAAAAY better at flying then ANY BIRD!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

We are not the "king" of anything, we are the BANE of the rest of nature, at almost every turn.

 

[Eddie French]

My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

 

[Rader]

The difference between any organic entity or inorganic is, that the human species can evolve above and beyond its works to ascend the ladder of ideas and transcend its actual works.

 

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Rader
The difference between any organic entity or inorganic is, that the human species can evolve above and beyond its works to ascend the ladder of ideas and transcend its actual works.

That's a nice quote, and it reads really well.
However, It does not move me. It has no romance, no art.
This is what defines us as human.
Try again, tickle my intellect!

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Eddie French
That's a nice quote, and it reads really well.
However, It does not move me. It has no romance, no art.
This is what defines us as human.
Try again, tickle my intellect!

OK I will, is this romantic and artistic enough?

The beauty of creation is in its diversity and its strife for perfection. Rader

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
We are not the "king" of anything, we are the BANE of the rest of nature, at almost every turn.

And yet, in the measure of the "Milk Of Human Kindness" that is present/existing/working in the world, today, it's continuance as 'Normal' is a testament to the very fact of the opposite of that very true aspect of reality, as it is present in both views (A balance) as would only be capable in such as present society. (as in Radio/television/internet*)

EDIT * Oooops and Newspapers/Journals/Magazines/BOOKS/etc./etc.