Humans as Higher Beings

[Anonymous]

There are obvious differences between humans and other animals, most notably in our awareness of the world around us, and our behaviour. For this reason, some people see us as being higher than other animals.

I was wondering whether you see us as being the same as any other animals or do the differences mean that we're superior, or even inferior? Is it possible that we're the only ones evolved enough to have a spirit, or is a spirit universal? Do single-celled lifeforms have spirits, and if not, does that make them inferior?

Maybe I think of things too much, but I'm curious about what people's take on this is.

[NachtSorcier]

Well, I don't profess to have all of the answers, but here is what I think.

Humans are not necessarily superior to other animals.  We may be able to have creative thoughts, paint pictures, build a computer, compose an opera, and solve algorithms, but we still have primal instincts.  Every one of us is guilty of getting mad at someone and thinking (or saying), "I'm going to kill him!"  Every one of us (short of a few asexuals) has sexual desires.  Some people are absolutely crazy and do horrible, animal-like things.  Yes, these people are in fact crazy, but it proves that it's still somewhere in our gentic make-up; just look at a few classic examples: Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, and to a slightly lesser extent, George W. Bush.

In short, we're not quite as evolved as we like to think.

As for "lower lifeforms," I believe that they carry some type of soul, but I don't feel that they are the same sort humans have.  Not inferior, just different.  I think that every natural being, plants, animals, fungi, protozoa, must have some sort of divine essence, otherwise they could not perform their functions.

[Zenon]

we can't even find a place in earth that is for us, we are always modifying it and destroying it because we don't like the way it is, how can we pòssibly be higher beings.  we are lower than viruses.

[RedRonin]

The ability of humans to intellectualize, adapt and create has allowed us to take a position of advantage over the other creatures on the planet.

In that respect I guess you'd say we are higher.

But in doing so, we have decimated entire species, polluted our world, overpopulated to the point that we cannot sustain enough food for our own species, are driving food sources to extinction as a result, make war on each other over ridiculous ideological differences, and so on and so forth.

Hardly the actions of higher beings.

As I've said many times previously, I prefer a good dog to most humans.

[Sebbi]

This is an excerpt from a conversation I had earlier today:

My friend's mum: "Have you ever crossed a fox in your garden - it gives you a look as if to say 'What are you doing in my garden?!' - it's as if it doesn't realise it's just a wild animal"
My friend: "Quite similar to humans then!"
Me: "I agree"
My friend: "What in that it's confused about it's territory?"
Me: "No - in that it doesn't know it's a wild animal"

I rest my case.

[Jennie]

I would take issue with the idea that there are "obvious" differences in the awareness and behavior of other animals as compared to humans.

Animals as diverse as parrots, dolphins, and great apes show the capacity not only for self-awareness but for the spontaneous manipulation of symbol systems and language. There are many instances of these animals learning to use OUR symbol systems and languages, in addition to their own. Some of them have even been known to intentionally lie. How much more human-like and self-aware can you get?

There are many other animals that modify their environments to suit their liking. Ever see a couple of beavers take a stream and turn it into a lake? Ever consider what effect that has on the pre-existing local ecosystem?

Really, the most striking difference between humans and other animals is the level of technology that we have devised in order to pass on our accumulated knowledge and to amplify our effect on the environment. There are other animals who use tools. They just haven't gotten to our level yet, and, because of structural considerations, may have a more difficult time getting there at all, but that doesn't mean we are somehow "higher", in the sense of better, than they are, simply that we developed our technologies to that point a bit sooner. The US had the atomic bomb before any other country in the world, and kept that knowldge exclusively for as long as possible (which wasn't all that long). Did that make us "higher" or more evolved, because we had more advanced technology?Clearly, our moral faculties hadn't kept pace with our technological achievements at that point.

It is instructive to remember that the real engine of technological advancement was the development of communications technology, begining with spoken language (which we share with many of our 'animal' brethren), boosted by poetry, launched ahead by writing, catapulted forward by the printing press, and culminating, so far, in the internet. This is what amplifies the power of the individual mind. It is the ability to both impact and access not only the ideas of the local family, tribe or village but that of individuals remote in time and place. If the octopus, for instance, ever figures out a way to pass on information between generations, we'll have some serious competion on our hands. The elephants' culture is finally disintegrating due to our abuses,
( http://sewayoleme.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/an-elephant-crackup/ )
and they are striking out in response. How does this differ from our own situation?

There is a continuum of living conciousness that can perhaps best be described as those that are, on the one hand "very much like me" and on the other "almost totally unlike me". It is tempting, but without an objective foundation, to describe conciousnesses that are very like our own to be "advanced" or "higher", because they are easier for us to understand and are more congruent with our own perspectives and experiences, and to dismiss conciousnesses that are very much unlike our own as "primitive" or "lower" because they do not make sense to us. Implicit in this is the idea that our ways of perceiving, organizing, and manipulating reality are naturally the best ways.

I find the entire premise of the question, well, questionable, but I suppose I would have to say that we and the other inhabitants of the planet are all different, but none of us is neccesarily better than the others simply on the basis of species.

Bright blessings,
Jennie

[Anonymous]

I would take issue with the idea that there are "obvious" differences in the awareness and behavior of other animals as compared to humans.

Animals as diverse as parrots, dolphins, and great apes show the capacity not only for self-awareness but for the spontaneous manipulation of symbol systems and language. There are many instances of these animals learning to use OUR symbol systems and languages, in addition to their own. Some of them have even been known to intentionally lie. How much more human-like and self-aware can you get?

I didn't mention anything about self-awareness, I did, however, mention awareness of the world around us. There have been psychological tests performed on chimps and other animals that show, for example, that they are unable to grasp the idea of third-person. If you point at a ball or other third-person object, they will look at your finger, not the object you're indicating.

Animals are motivated by their primal urges, but in some instances we go against ours. We have the desire to explore and create technology, where animals, though displaying curiosity, don't behave in this way.

There are many other animals that modify their environments to suit their liking. Ever see a couple of beavers take a stream and turn it into a lake? Ever consider what effect that has on the pre-existing local ecosystem?

The difference between an animal creating a habitat for themselves, and a human making a habitat for themselves is that animals do this by necessity, where we build things, in some cases, for aesthetic reasons, or to provide entertainment.

Really, the most striking difference between humans and other animals is the level of technology that we have devised in order to pass on our accumulated knowledge and to amplify our effect on the environment. There are other animals who use tools. They just haven't gotten to our level yet,  and, because of structural considerations, may have a more difficult time getting there at all, but that doesn't mean we are somehow "higher", in the sense of better, than they are, simply that we developed our technologies to that point a bit sooner. The US had the atomic bomb before any other country in the world, and kept that knowldge exclusively for as long as possible (which wasn't all that long). Did that make us "higher" or more evolved, because we had more advanced technology?Clearly, our moral faculties hadn't kept pace with our technological achievements at that point.

You act like I'm saying me must be higher because of these things. I wasn't saying that, I was posing a question to see what other people thought. I actually think that our added 'advantages' in some cases make us act in a very destructive way, and that we could learn a thing or two.

It is instructive to remember that the real engine of technological advancement was the development of communications technology, begining with spoken language (which we share with many of our 'animal' brethren), boosted by poetry, launched ahead by writing, catapulted forward by the printing press, and culminating, so far, in the internet. This is what amplifies the power of the individual mind. It is the ability to both impact and access not only the ideas of the local family, tribe or village but that of individuals remote in time and place. If the octopus, for instance, ever figures out a way to pass on information between generations, we'll have some serious competion on our hands. The elephants' culture is finally disintegrating due to our abuses,
( http://sewayoleme.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/an-elephant-crackup/ )
and they are striking out in response. How does this differ from our own situation?

There are still differences... There are differences between all animals. The thing I was hitting on was that a lot of people see the differences between humans and other animals as indications of us being 'higher' beings.

I find the entire premise of the question, well, questionable, but I suppose I would have to say that we and the other inhabitants of the planet are all different, but none of us is neccesarily better than the others simply on the basis of species.

That's fair enough, but you have to understand that I'm simply asking a question about the idea, not necessarily supporting it.

[Shadow]

There have been psychological tests performed on chimps and other animals that show, for example, that they are unable to grasp the idea of third-person. If you point at a ball or other third-person object, they will look at your finger, not the object you're indicating.

I'm sorry, until I see specifics on those tests I'll have to disagree (and try not to laugh at such utterly asinine statements). Chimps are acutely aware of the others in their group, and what is going on around them. This is evidenced by their caring, protective nature, their higherarchical system of social behavior, and other things such as the the cooperative manner in which the hunt and gather food. Many animals display such evidence of this awareness of others. All of the great apes certainly do, monkeys, dolphins, elephants, parots. In fact, if one is simply observant this type of awareness of third person can be obviously seen in your family pet.

Of course the idiots who insist on using "strict psychological practices of behavoral analysis" will tell you that is simply anthropomorphising. What I say to them is prove it, show me your behavoral studies really work on all animals the way you say they do, test it on cats!

[Jennie]

I didn't mention anything about self-awareness, I did, however, mention awareness of the world around us. There have been psychological tests performed on chimps and other animals that show, for example, that they are unable to grasp the idea of third-person. If you point at a ball or other third-person object, they will look at your finger, not the object you're indicating.

Which demonstrates exactly nothing about their third-person awareness or lack of it. It could just as easily mean that body language and gestures are important forms of communication for them, and they are trying to look at you when you talk. When 'higher' primates have been taught sign language, their usage certainly indicates awareness of the world around them. They ask for objects that are not currently present, they pretend, they express likes and dislikes of particular foods, people, or other animals even in their absence, they talk about the past and the future.

Animals are motivated by their primal urges, but in some instances we go against ours. We have the desire to explore and create technology, where animals, though displaying curiosity, don't behave in this way.

I suppose it depends upon how you define primal urges. Humans, like many highly social creatures, have high intrinsic needs for companionship, acceptance, status, and group approval as well as needs for food, shelter, and reproduction. Sometimes these needs are in conflict. Which ones win out differs by the individual. When humans seem to go against one of their "primal urges", it is generally because another one wins out. There are certainly plenty of examples of dogs, horses, dolphins, elephants, and other animals who have formed close bonds with humans coming to the defense of human companions even when it imperiled them, house-trained pets and working elephants routinely ignore "primal urges" until the time and place to engage in them is appropriate, and the social structures of primates, elephants, and some other social animals include caring for injured or sick group members. It goes against Occam's razor to attribute the same behaviors to instinct on the part of other animals and higher intellectual or moral development on the part of humans.

As I mentioned before, there are other animals who use tools. Chimps will use twigs to fish for termites. Sea otters seek out flat rocks to use as abalone smashers. Raccoons and octopi will devise quite ingenious methods of defeating locks and latches in order to obtain food. Ever hear the phrase "Necessity is the mother of invention."? Humans, like other animals, invent technology to meet their needs of the moment. Technology is driven by the need to solve a perceived problem. It has only been quite recently in human history that the set of problems to be solved extended much beyond food, shelter, and social or hierarchical standing.

There are many other animals that modify their environments to suit their liking. Ever see a couple of beavers take a stream and turn it into a lake? Ever consider what effect that has on the pre-existing local ecosystem?

The difference between an animal creating a habitat for themselves, and a human making a habitat for themselves is that animals do this by necessity, where we build things, in some cases, for aesthetic reasons, or to provide entertainment.

Male bower bird build bowers, paint them and decorate them with flowers, berries, shells, and other found objects for no other reason than the fact that female bower birds think they are pretty. They don't function as nests, they aren't used as shelters, they have no function beyond the aesthetic.

Dogs who are left alone in an entertainment-poor environment for long periods of time will dig holes, not as dens or shelters, but out of boredom, to amuse themselves.

You act like I'm saying we must be higher because of these things. I wasn't saying that, I was posing a question to see what other people thought. I actually think that our added 'advantages' in some cases make us act in a very destructive way, and that we could learn a thing or two.

You said that there were obvious differences between humans and other animals in our awareness and behavior, and asked us if we thought that these differences made us higher or lower. I was both disputing the idea that there are obvious differences in awareness and behavior between humans and other animals and arguing against the idea that humans were in some way higher or lower. Because your question contained many parts, my answer did, too.

[Sewa Yoleme]

I was wondering whether you see us as being the same as any other animals or do the differences mean that we're superior, or even inferior? Is it possible that we're the only ones evolved enough to have a spirit, or is a spirit universal? Do single-celled lifeforms have spirits, and if not, does that make them inferior?

Seventy-five years ago, in his book The Outermost House, Henry Beston wrote:

"Touch the earth, love the earth, her plains, her valleys, her hills, and her seas; rest your spirit in her solitary places. For the gifts of life are the earth’s and they are given to all, and they are the songs of birds at daybreak, Orion and the Bear, and the dawn seen over the ocean from the beach.

"When the Pleiades and the wind in the grass are no longer a part of the human spirit, a part of very flesh and bone, man becomes, as it were, a kind of cosmic outlaw, having neither the completeness and integrity of the animal nor the birthright of a true humanity.

"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."

That pretty much sums up my perspective on the subject.

.:. Sewa Yoleme

[Zorro]

Humans have the tendency to regard superior ability, or perhaps I should say, the kind of superior ability that humans demonstrate,  as proof of superior worth.  IMO, one does not necessarily follow the other.

True, our technological advances in medicine and in the sciences allow us to now save lives (both human and non) that in yesteryear's world, we could not even dream of doing.  In that way our abilities are of great worth.  However,  this 'power' that our technological advancements have granted us have also granted us the ability to blow each other up in greater numbers and with greater ease.  

There are many instances where our technologies are of little to no value.  The ability to operate a PC or to write poetry will not aid one when lost in the woods on a cold night. In such an instance, I would gladly trade my human 'superiority' for some good ole animal 'instincts' (or whatever it is that they possess).

Through the ages, humans have slowly separated themselves from nature.  When one does that, it becomes easier to see oneself as having moved beyond and above it.  And once one is removed from something, both physically and emotionally, it is very easy to devaluate it, or to elevate oneself.

Methinks humans spend too much time thinking about themselves.

Do other species possess a spirit?  Heck - I don't even know if we do.

[Anonymous]

There have been psychological tests performed on chimps and other animals that show, for example, that they are unable to grasp the idea of third-person. If you point at a ball or other third-person object, they will look at your finger, not the object you're indicating.

I'm sorry, until I see specifics on those tests I'll have to disagree (and try not to laugh at such utterly asinine statements).

I explained the idea incorrectly. I should have taken time to reread what I was writing.

The basic idea was that they were unable to see things from the other person's point of view (which is probably more related to second person perception). By looking at the finger rather than the object, they show that they don't understand that from the other person's point of view, the finger is indicating something that person can see.

According to people running the experiments, they can recognise moods and emotions in other animals because they can recognise facial expressions and different behaviours, but they'd be unable to empathise.

[Anonymous]

Animals are motivated by their primal urges, but in some instances we go against ours. We have the desire to explore and create technology, where animals, though displaying curiosity, don't behave in this way.

I suppose it depends upon how you define primal urges. Humans, like many highly social creatures, have high intrinsic needs for companionship, acceptance, status, and group approval as well as needs for food, shelter, and reproduction. Sometimes these needs are in conflict. Which ones win out differs by the individual. When humans seem to go against one of their "primal urges", it is generally because another one wins out. There are certainly plenty of examples of dogs, horses, dolphins, elephants, and other animals who have formed close bonds with humans coming to the defense of human companions even when it imperiled them, house-trained pets and working elephants routinely ignore "primal urges" until the time and place to engage in them is appropriate, and the social structures of primates, elephants, and some other social animals include caring for injured or sick group members. It goes against Occam's razor to attribute the same behaviors to instinct on the part of other animals and higher intellectual or moral development on the part of humans.

I'm not sure where companionship came into this. There are other social animals out there, and I'm not disputing that.

As I mentioned before, there are other animals who use tools. Chimps will use twigs to fish for termites. Sea otters seek out flat rocks to use as abalone smashers. Raccoons and octopi will devise quite ingenious methods of defeating locks and latches in order to obtain food. Ever hear the phrase "Necessity is the mother of invention."? Humans, like other animals, invent technology to meet their needs of the moment. Technology is driven by the need to solve a perceived problem. It has only been quite recently in human history that the set of problems to be solved extended much beyond food, shelter, and social or hierarchical standing.

Not all of our technology is necessary. We have invented things like computers and TV for entertainment, when we managed to do without these things for years. We don't need games and TV programmes to survive as a species, we just LIKE having them. Other animals use tools and make things only if they need them. If anything, I think humans waste resources.

There are many other animals that modify their environments to suit their liking. Ever see a couple of beavers take a stream and turn it into a lake? Ever consider what effect that has on the pre-existing local ecosystem?

The difference between an animal creating a habitat for themselves, and a human making a habitat for themselves is that animals do this by necessity, where we build things, in some cases, for aesthetic reasons, or to provide entertainment.

Male bower bird build bowers, paint them and decorate them with flowers, berries, shells, and other found objects for no other reason than the fact that female bower birds think they are pretty. They don't function as nests, they aren't used as shelters, they have no function beyond the aesthetic.

But isn't that to attract a mate.

Dogs who are left alone in an entertainment-poor environment for long periods of time will dig holes, not as dens or shelters, but out of boredom, to amuse themselves.

It is quite possible they're amusing themselves. I've seen a dog use its front paws to masturbate so I'm not going to deny that animals do things purely for entertainment.

You act like I'm saying we must be higher because of these things. I wasn't saying that, I was posing a question to see what other people thought. I actually think that our added 'advantages' in some cases make us act in a very destructive way, and that we could learn a thing or two.

You said that there were obvious differences between humans and other animals in our awareness and behavior, and asked us if we thought that these differences made us higher or lower. I was both disputing the idea that there are obvious differences in awareness and behavior between humans and other animals and arguing against the idea that humans were in some way higher or lower. Because your question contained many parts, my answer did, too.

Okay, I thought you were trying to imply that I was using the differences to argue that we were superior. I can't understand how anyone can think there are no differences between humans and other animals. We have better technology, we clothe ourselves, we go into habitats (like the ocean) where we have no business being, we wipe out other species, we pollute, etc. We're the one's who have screwed up the planet, and I think, though we may be more intelligent, we, in a lot of cases, don't use that intelligence very well.

I'm sorry if I've caused any offence. Sometimes I say stupid stuff. I just want to assure you that I was arguing with what you said, not with you as a person.

[Anonymous]

I was wondering whether you see us as being the same as any other animals or do the differences mean that we're superior, or even inferior? Is it possible that we're the only ones evolved enough to have a spirit, or is a spirit universal? Do single-celled lifeforms have spirits, and if not, does that make them inferior?

Seventy-five years ago, in his book The Outermost House, Henry Beston wrote:

"Touch the earth, love the earth, her plains, her valleys, her hills, and her seas; rest your spirit in her solitary places. For the gifts of life are the earth’s and they are given to all, and they are the songs of birds at daybreak, Orion and the Bear, and the dawn seen over the ocean from the beach.

"When the Pleiades and the wind in the grass are no longer a part of the human spirit, a part of very flesh and bone, man becomes, as it were, a kind of cosmic outlaw, having neither the completeness and integrity of the animal nor the birthright of a true humanity.

"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."

That pretty much sums up my perspective on the subject.

.:. Sewa Yoleme

Very well put.