Who/what is more significant in the world?

Question

Many philosophers have come up with the idea that humans have more value than animals and others have said that humans and animals are equal.
James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis challenges the view that humans are the most important species and sees humans as part of a living whole- Gaia. Gaia being the Greek goddess of the Earth. According to him, all life forms of the planet are part of Gaia -looking at the earth from space,Lovelock saw not so much a planet of diverse life forms as a planet transformed be self- regulating living systems; it was almost a living being.
I personally believe that, to a certain extent, humans hold the same value as animals. My reasons for saying so are that as humans have evolved from apes and apes are considered animals, are we not therefore animals ourselves?It has been said and confirmed by scientists..
Please explain your reasons to believe whatever it is you believe.

Answer 1

THANK YOU!!! I hate people who think that humans are sooo much more important than animals, only due to the fact that we have opposable thumbs and can kill them easier.

Sorry, I dont want to explain my reasons and end up typing a huge paragraph, but to say it simply I think that any kind of life is precious and should be considered equal. What happens to some animals these days is horrible.


I still eat them though (food chain) >.>

THANKS FOR THE THUMBS DOWN NERDS!

Answer 2

Why can we not be part of the living whole and be the most significant? They are not mutually exclusive.

It has been theorized by scientists that we evolved from apes, but there is still a lot of missing evidence to confirm that theory. Therefore it cannot be held as the end all, be all of what is and what has happened. Right now it's just the best educated guess we have given the evidence put forth.

Humans do have more value as we are superior to the other animals, and if you are a religious sort, then God ha given humans dominion over all animals.

Sounds like some liberalist, animal rights whacko activists have gotten into your brain. You might want to consider thinking for yourself and not following the political agenda of the week.

Answer 3

Value and significance are human notions; they do not exist independently in nature. Thus, man's relative value or significance compared to the other animals essentially boils down to a matter of opinion which varies from person to person. My opinion is that yes, biologically we are animals and we should never be cruel to them but at the same time, human lives must take precedence. I fully support the use of animals for food, clothing, pets, and humane medical research.

I reject the Gaia hypothesis because quite frankly, it's too religious for me. Lovelock does make a good point about how species in an ecosystem interact with each other in complex ways. Actually, in economics, markets behave in much the same way, constantly self-adjusting to changing conditions. But he is wrong on two counts.

First, the Earth simply can not be regarded as a single living entity. Take most any organ out of an animal and the entire animal will die. But in nature, the loss of a species is quickly compensated for by other species who move in to fill the niche. Just like in economics, the loss of one company does not normally ruin the whole economy; other companies simply pick up the demand created by the loss. Nature is a system that is constantly in flux. There is no "balance" of nature because even aside from human influence, nature is constantly changing.

The second and, I think more serious blunder that Lovelock makes is giving nature an entity status, or "objectifying" it. Environmentalism should be founded on rational, scientific principles, but in making it into a quasi-religion complete with its own goddess, Lovelock is doing exactly the opposite. Check out the link below for some comparisons between religion and the growing Lovelockian brand of environmentalism.

P.S. to Emily, your understanding of evolution is flawed. That a species must die out once it has evolved into something else sounds like the type of misinformation that creationist sites are fond of propagating.

Answer 4

I also believe we are not more important than animals. Human ego has led to believe that just because we can reason we are the most magnificent creation of all. The truth? I say it is all instinct, we were just given the gift (or is it curse) to have options on how to achieve things. Do birds not build their own houses? Do Lions not hunt for food? Do elephants not have a way to cool themselves? Don’t we all get horny? We are another type of species. Evolution has made us what we are and as much as we have accomplished I cannot be sure if we should be proud or call ourselves superior.
We have build so much, but look at all we have destroyed. What bugs me is the fact that the more we have accomplish the unhappier we have become. We keep wanting more and more. Nothing satisfies us.
The planet wouldn’t be what it is without us but is that good? or is it bad?
I do believe we are part of a whole. We should be grateful for our gifts. Just like birds can fly, whales can breath air and still live under water, cheetahs can run, beavers can build we can think… but really what are we doing with it?

Answer 5

Generally speaking, only theists will dispute the fact that we are animals, as of course they believe we were intelligently designed in the image of god. Of course then they must also believe cows were intelligently designed solely to feed us?

Anyone who suggests we possess unique traits that are non-animalistic would have to investigate every living species to authenticate their self centred claim. These claims could even be compared to the imperial belief that the earth was the centre of existence.

Technically speaking we are animals and there is no way around that other than delusion.

This is why..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

Answer 6

If you are no more important than some other animal, how can you possibly justify killing and eating it? What reason do you have for displacing the homes of hundreds of animals to have a home for yourself? Not to mention all the other things you use on a daily basis - products of science and technology, all of which required factories and resources wrested from other animals and very likely killing huge numbers of them.

IF you really see them as EQUAL to you, then you cannot REASONABLY kill much more than ONE insect, rodent, bird, or other such creature to preserve your own life. NO farms, no clothes, no homes, no technology, no pretty much anything.

So what is it then? Is this all talk, or should we expect you to throw off your clothes and move into a cave?

Don't expect any thank-yous from the animals, by the way. Virtually all of them would kill us and take our stuff in a second if they could. Generally speaking, almost any animal that doesn't view its own survival as of prime importance is doomed to be an evolutionary dead-end. A footnote of history. Rather like the Luddites.

But to each their own. Enjoy your cave.

Answer 7

I wouldn't say that humans are more important that animals because I think that humans and animals hold the same value. However, I think humans are more significant than animals because humans are the dominant species. If anything, you'd have to say plants are the most important because that is where it all starts. Without plants, humans and animals can not exist. Whereas plants could survive without humans or animals.

Answer 8

I think it could almost be argued that plankton are the most significant as they are at the bottom of the food chain for so many other creatures that life would be impossible without them.
To Emily humans and the current great apes such as chimps and baboons probably all originate from a common ancestor and are therefore cousins. Afterall we share about 99% DNA in common.

Answer 9

I hope you know what you are doing. The consequences of this debate could be far far more significant that you might think you have bargained for. For instance, what if animals become aware of all this ostentatious bickering among humans – as the fact is all we care is about ourselves, and even that just about as much as we think we understand; what if cats or dogs, or both cats and dogs, alongside other marsupials, reptiles, fishes and birds, I mean all animals learn to say ‘THANK YOU’ to you for you these rather decent thought that ooze genuine wonder and kindness in gallons?

Do you think awareness like yours would bring about some changes in the world at large, in the minds of people who live thoughtlessly, worse then animals, or would it change the animal world … if so, then for better or for worse? I believe it would be for worse, given that we are approaching the dawn of bioengineering, where all thinking life forms, or forms that claim to be thoughtful - mainly humans, are desperate to become not only fitter, better and healthier though the use of molecular and DNA tempering, tinkering or call them advanced treatment, but to become different altogether in all shape and form, or just to stay the same but in great multiples, as clones.

Then if we let the animals into this debate, at such sensitive times, enabling them to say THANK YOU, do you they will not also learn to say, ‘Hang on a minute! What is going on? You see, we live here too, and we want our rights too, and lets have those genetic modification to stand upright, etc’.

In the end hen we will have just people many of them, for various backgrounds, backwaters, and outbacks. Then instead of people plus animal co-inhibiting this planet, with people pretending to take care of the rest, there will be only people similar only evolved differently. No, thanks, and keep quiet!

Answer 10

yes it is true, we are animals. but are animals with reason. to equate ourselves, humans who have created cities and established civilization to a lowly rat who merely lives in the shadow of our creation would be preposterous. in the natural world animals are given claws, fangs, and venom. we, on the other hand is given reason, logic and opposable thumbs.
we are animals no doubt, but when given a choice to choose to save a human child or a dog from drowning, which would you choose? your answer will somewhat give you an idea if humans hold the same value as animals.

Answer 11

i agree that humans and animals have the same value as we both contribute to the planet in the same way exept that humans are probably better at destroying it.
i also beleived that humans evolved from apes but for evolution to take place the first species must be ultimately wiped out, something which has not happened, it is likely that we are a brother or sister species as birds are to dinosaurs though.