On the discussion "A ChristMyth message – an Atheist perspective", Jack the Lad implied that flies were lesser creatures than humans because they consumed faeces.

But faeces contain many useful nutrients. Flies have the capacity to utilise them without any adverse health affects. Why are they an inferior food source?

Yes, as humans we find them disgusting - because we are not evolved to be able to utilise faeces as a food source, and indeed they present a significant health risk. Likewise, we find grass generally unpleasant to chew on, and stones and dirt, despite the fact that many other species regularly consume both (though of course stones are of very little nutritional value, they're typically used to help digestion).

I've yet to see anyone give an objective reason why humans are "higher" than any other species. For every feature we excel at, one could surely list several that we don't.

Having said that, as a human being, I absolutely defend our right as a species to put ourselves first, and value human beings and human needs over other species. To do otherwise is absurd - are we supposed to campaign to save the smallpox virus?

If we want to save the whales, admit that we want to save them because as humans we find them beautiful, or sympathise with them because of their intelligence and shared mammalian characteristics.
And of course because hunting animals to extinction threatens the entire biosphere that supports us. But not because a whale is inherently more valuable than, say, a cockroach.

BTW, I will offer one objective achievement of humans that other species are unlikely to ever match - being able to leave our planet and survive outside the atmosphere. If this eventually leads to the colonisation of outer space, we could not unreasonably rate ourselves as a more successful species than those that had remained earth-bound.

Oh lordy, are we really indulging Jack's need to be named KING OF ALL CREATURES. Of course, wizofaus, you're totally right.

There are a million ways of measuring success as an organism, but the most scientific are generally about reproduction and adaption, and those pesky viruses beat us every time. Not that there's anything wrong with viruses and bacteria - for every nasty we want to eradicate there's one that saves our lives, daily. Protecting our interests as a species means protecting our environment - external and internal. Because it protects us.

Cause imagine if we let Jack's fantasties run wild, and the earth became the site of a giant Organism War, and humans won, and defeated all the other animals and vanquished them. Well that would suck, cause we'd all, like, you know, die of hunger and stuff.

Interdependent, life, innit?

Actually, I'm halfway through reading a book 'plague's progress' at the moment, and it's quite fascinating. Gives me an entirely new view of viruses, and how they and man have adapted and played off one another over the years.

We view the common cold as a bad thing, but every time it comes around it gives our immune system an opportunity to cope and adapt. We tend to think evolution has been halted for humanity, but when you consider that todays version of the common cold would likely have killed people of the past who haven't had decades to adapt, it's quite interesting.

It's an old adage, but it's accurate - the simplest organism is often the most effective. It all depends on how you gauge what's of value in a species. As humans, we like to think things like culture, art and sophistication are important, but that's only when you put them on our scale of priorities, which of course, we often rate higher.

Your average bacteria couldn't give a damn... and they'll be around long after we're gone.

Good to see that you all have a sense of humour. This site needs more comedy. Keep up the good work and I'll stick with my 'fantasies' of human achievement. If there are sexists and racists, am I a humanist in opposition to animalists (or insectiviles, virusphiliacs)? Or am I an animalphobe?

Flies may eat it but others talk and write it.

Then again, Wiz, you're a bit puzzling when you change tack to admitting that space travel puts us ahead.

botheration, where did you get the idea that I am fantasising about an 'organism' war. What were you on when you wrote that? I certainly wouldn't kill off all the cows cause then I would 'like, you know, die of hunger and stuff'.

TurnRightThenLeft's comments on the common cold are indeed correct though.

It's not space travel that puts us ahead, Jack, it's the ability to colonise outerspace. Were humans to ever truly colonise the galaxy, there could literally be thousands of trillions of us living on millions of planets and other worlds, which would put us ahead of other species on many objective measures.

As yet, we haven't really come very close to colonising outer-space, so while, for instance, landing on the moon counts as one of mankind's greatest technical feats, it's not worth much from an evolutionary or survival perspective.

"What a piece of work is man?" exclaims Hamlet in Shakespeare's play,
"How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, and moving, how express and admirable! In action, how like an angel! In apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet... what is this quintessance of dust?"

Hamlet's question is probably as old as the unique human capacity for self-awareness, a capacity that extends perhaps hundreds of thousands of years back into prehistory.

Modern science can give no simple answer to the question, for we are an extraordinarily complex species - the most intelligent, resourceful, and adaptable that has ever existed on the planet.

Yet today we do know infinitely more about the human species than we did even a few years ago, and we have learned that many traditional ideas about "human nature" are hoplessly naive and misguided.

Our almost total reliance on learned behaviour is the single most important characteristic distinguishing us from other creatures.
We share a number of common characteristics with the higher primates, all of which give us clues to our own evolutionary background.
1) Sociability. 2) Intelligence. 3) Sensitive hands. 4) Vocality.
5) Acute eyesight. 5) Upright posture.

In the course of their evolution, our hominid ancestors developed two additional characteristics. The first, found in few other animals, is the potential for year-round mating. Human beings do not have a breeding season, a fact that encourages mates to form stable, long-lasting bonds.

The second, found to a much greater extent in human beings than in any other animal, is the infant's long period of dependence on adults.
This lengthy dependence provides the young human being with the opportunity to learn the cultural knowledge necessary for survival as an adult.

Fossil records show that the modern human form of Homo sapiens was achieved about 50,000 years ago. The long evolutionary process made us what we are: an almost hairless, bipedal, tool-using, talking, family-forming, self-aware, highly intelligent social animal.

I'm not sure how you can objectively qualify humans as the most "resourceful and adaptable" species on the planet. We haven't had to adapt to anything like the range of conditions that some species of bacteria have, for example. And "resourceful" sounds suspiciously like a subjective, human judgement. All extant species are just as capable of making use of the resources available to them to continue reproducing.

One thing that is worth remembering is that we have been blessed with an extraordinarily long period of stable, very mild climate and low tectonic activity. Actually, it's probably more sensible to suggest that without it, we would never have evolved to the point we have. But that also makes us highly vulnerable to any change in that stability.

"If there are sexists and racists, am I a humanist in opposition to animalists (or insectiviles, virusphiliacs)? Or am I an animalphobe?"

Ok. While these jokes are hilarious, it's to get your head around the argument now, Jack. We're not talking about prejudice — about rating monkeys over humans in the same way some lefties think ethnics are cooler than anglo-saxons — we're having a discussion about the different criteria used to rate biological success. You thought space travel, and wizofaus (who can, incredibly, hold several different ideas in his head at once) concurs with grave qualifications. I think the SAR-11 virus.

Foxy, isn't it a gorgeous speech? I agree it's germane, though I also agree with wizofaus. We're certainly the most intelligent species, but we're not the most adaptable.

Even our power as a species is pretty limited. If we did want to eradicate another species, for the vast majority of them we'd have to eradicate ourselves as well.

The bubonic plague virus still exists, you know.

Ok. let me explain what I meant by the word "adaptable."

Our almost total reliance on learned behaviour is the single most important characteristic distinguishing us from other creatures. Our physical adaptations and the behavioural flexibility offered by our huge and complex brains have made us the most creative species in the planet's history. Homo sapiens has spread to every continent, frequently driving other animal species to extinction in the process.

It has become the most widely dispersed species on the planet, occupying mountains and valleys, deserts and jungles, shorelines and tundra, yet always finding some specialized means of living in these widely differing environments. The total weight of all living members of the species far exceeds that of any other animal, and the human population is now growing so rapidly that, if current rates persist, it will double in about fourty years.

What accounts for the unprecedented success that our species has enjoyed so far? The answer in a word is, culture. We create culture, but culture in turn creates us. We make our own social environment, inventing and sharing the rules and patterns of behaviour that shape our lives, and we use our learned knowledge to modify the natural environment. Our shared culture is what makes social life possible.

Without a culture transmitted from the past, each new generation would have to solve the most elementary problems of human existence over again. It would be obliged to devise a family system, to invent a language, to discover fire, to create the wheel and so on.

Wait now, hang on a minute. Aren't we all arguing different criteria? What do we mean by "successful"? Does our ability to overrun the earth - and perhaps, one day space - necessarily make us successful? As we have only been around for a blink of an eyelash we have no way of knowing. Perhaps, in the Great Scheme of Things the rise - and fall - of the human species will be as transient as that of the dinosaur. Especially if that very ability causes us to deplete and destroy our own environment.

And the intelligence thing? That's pretty subjective really, isn't it? Yeah we can create technology but if that only eventually leads to us destroying our own habitat it will only have worked for us for a comparatively short time.

The learned behaviour thing seems a little bit dodgy to me. Birds don't learn migrating patterns, salmon dont learn to spawn upstream...but these behaviours aid in their survival.

We have no natural protection like claws, carapace, camouflage, sharp teeth, or the ability to secrete poisonous substances. Our bodies are naked and without pelts or feathers, so cannot survive extremes of temperature: unlike species that hibernate, go into suspended animation or, like some frogs and fish completely change their habitat. We are the only species who murder each other: all others kill for food or survival. We haven't even learned that most basic of lessons: not to crap on our own doorsteps.

Sharks, crocs, cockroaches and viruses: I reckon they'll be around when there is no way of marking our brief unsuccessful passage here and nature has eradicated all marks of our being. Perhaps all our vain words and mighty works will avail us of nothing in a vast, eternal universe a thousand thousand years from now?

Foxy, I doubt that humans are the "most widely dispersed species on the planet". There would surely be species of insects, fungi, bacteria or perhaps even fish or crustaceans that would beat us there.
However, I'd allow that we're currently the most successful mammalian species.

Another truly impressive statistic is that amount of solar energy that mankind controls: from memory ~50% of the energy captured by photosynthesis worldwide is used by humans.

However, remember, this has been true for only a tiny proportion of our existence. If you were to measure the total % of energy captured by photosynthesis worldwide over the last 200,000 years, I doubt humans would have made use of more than a few percent of it.

If Homo Sapiens is still as dominant and wide-spread as it is today in another 50 or 100000 years, then sure, we'd have some genuine claims to superiority (indeed, as I mentioned in another thread, I doubt Homo Sapiens as we know it today will last another millenium - in that time period almost certainly we will attempt to start directing our own genetic evolution).

Wiz,
Single cell organisms may well already have colonised space.
They may have originally come from Mars to Earth, or further a field(as proposed by Sir Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe,Godfrey Louis. David Lloyd),or, they may have hitched a ride on one of our space crafts as did the colony that survived for ‘at least 30 months’ ,without special provisions, in equipment left behind on the moon.

Though I agree with the statement:
“ I doubt Homo Sapiens AS WE KNOW IT today will last another millennium - in that time period almost certainly we will attempt to start directing our own genetic”

Perhaps this will be the key . We have the ability to change our own form/essence. Other (known) entities must follow the dictates of natural selection .

You guys have been smoking to much pot!

Pretty sure it must be somebody-famous's rule that when the best that those who disagree with you can do is to scoff and laugh that their side of the case hasn't got a leg to stand on.

I'm almost tempted to invoke Godwin's law and suggest that those who believe humans are inherently superior to other species are no better than those who believe certain (Aryan?) human races are inherently superior to other humans.

I would be crying more than laughing!

Dear Wiz,

I'll keep it simple. The Human being has the most highly developed brain of any animal. The human brain gives people many special abilities, the most outstanding of which is the ability to speak.

Language has enabled human beings to develop "culture," which consists of ways of behaving and thinking.

These ways are passed on from generation to generation through learning. Culture also includes "technology" - that is, the tools and techniques invented by people to help satisfy their needs and desires.

The richness and complexity of human culture distinguish human beings from all other animals.

It's the human brain that helps make people the most adaptable of all creatures. They behave with the most flexibility and in the greatest variety of ways. The human body is highly adaptable because it has few specialized features that could limit its activities.

In contrast, a seal has a body streamlined for swimming, but it has difficulty moving about on land. People cannot swim as well as a seal, but they can also walk, run, and climb.

Human adaptability enables people to live in an extremely wide variety of environments - from the tropics to the Arctic.

As for your remark about the "Aryan race ..." As most of us know from the study of history -, conquering people believe they are more intelligent than those they have conquered. They often attempt to justify their conquests by claiming superiority. The ancient Romans believed they were more intelligent than the Greeks, but they used Greek slaves to educate their children.

In the 1930s, the leaders of Nazi Germany preached that Germans belonged to the "superior Aryan race," and that Jews and all other non-Aryan peoples were inferior. But there is no scientific basis to such claims.

Foxy, there's no question that there are several areas in which human beings excel. But the only reason that we even think such attributes are important is because we are human. The ability to communicate with complex language and think in highly abstract fashions may be unique to us, but why do you believe such abilities are more worthwhile than any of the various characteristics of other species that we do not possess? Do you think, for example, dogs are jealous of our ability to solve quadratic equations, when we can't even smell when there's a person in the next room? Or that eagles long to be able to compose poetry, if it meant having to give up the ability to soar through the skies at any time they wished, with no fussing about with complex and unreliable equipment?

(Actually, I think if the majority of other species had the ability to form such opinions, instead of being jealous of our species, they'd probably be downright pissed off with us for not leaving them much of a planet to share.)

I couldn't find any passages online from Stephen Jay Gould where he argues quite forcibly that human intelligence shouldn't be considered as any sort "peak" of evolutionary progress, but I did find this page, which argues against Gould quite lucidly:

http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm

I'm not sure the author goes as far as concluding that humans are inherently more superior to other species because of our unique abilities though.

Seeing as nobody else (except perhaps Foxy) seems to be interested in presenting the other side of the case, I figured I should do it myself!

Wiz,
You throw in the Nazi question as a bit of spoiler.
But it may be closer to the mark that it first seems.

In Darwinian terms there are no morally right or wrong outcomes.

If the Nazis had won and imprinted their ID on humanity.
They would demonstratively have been superior.

Just as if organism A eliminates organism B . It makes no difference if B was ‘nicer’, ‘prettier’ or even had a more diverse gene pool.

In human terms – populations & memes:
The most rigidly ‘moral’(qualification: when dealing with outsiders) will lose-out to the least.

And some of the reasons may be :
– The more moral are (more) constrained in how they answer external threats ,and
– The more moral usual have less children , and oft, end up, cuckold like, ultimately subsidising/ raising the more numerous children of the less moral

Dear Wiz,

Flies carry germs that cause serious diseases . They cause disease in animals and plants (filariasis, dysentery... et cetera). Cockroaches are considered household pests - they also carry germs. Bacteria are simple organisms that consist of one cell (some species cause diseases, many others are helpful). But if you seriously believe in their superiority to human beings - well, I don't believe you... However, to compare whales to cockroaches - is unfortunately placing this discussion on a totally different level.

All I can say in conclusion is to quote the great Greek playwright Sophocles (about 496 - 406 B.C.)who said long ago in the great chorus of his "Antigone," - "Wonders there are many ... but none more wonderful than man." He added, "His is speech and wind-swift thought!"

Foxy, as a human being myself, of course I value other humans above bacteria, or flies or cockroaches. My point is that this is an entirely human judgement, made by standards that humans consider important. But bacteria, flies and cockroaches are just as much spectacular successes of evolution as are humans. Indeed, in many aspects they're arguably a lot more successful.
"Complexity" itself does not indicate inherent superiority. No-one rates, for example, scientific theories or mathematical formulae by their complexity: anyone can make a theory or formula more complex than it needs to be. Perhaps humans are far more complex than they really need to be, too?

All species have their special designed abilities and a designated place and purpose on this planet. However humanity is the only species with a responsible and moral commission for the care of this planet. So far we could improve on our record.

From Peter Stokes "It’s official - the Godwit makes the longest non-stop migratory flight in the world. A Bar-tailed Godwit has been tracked from its Southern Hemisphere summertime home in New Zealand to its breeding ground in Alaska - and back again.

A female known as E7, landed in New Zealand after taking just a week to fly 11,500 km from Alaska. Unlike seabirds, which feed and rest on long journeys, Godwits just keep going. E7 set her first record on the way north, when she flew non-stop for 10,200 km to Yalu Jiang in China. She then flew a further 5,000 km to the Godwit breeding grounds in Alaska. And on the way back to New Zealand, her electronic tag still working, E7 set another record of 11,500 km.

As if that is not amazing enough, any chicks E7 produced during her two months in Alaska will make the same journey. At just two months of age. “Some might fly down in flocks with adults but other ones will fly down without any adults involved at all which is pretty amazing,” said Dr Battley, Massey University ecologist.

What an amazing design that man can but stand in awe of because she, E7, is so wonderfully made. Why is there such a bird? Why does it need
to fly so far?

Accident? Random chance? This bird just happened to find its way? No.
Very intelligent and creative design and great aerodynamics by a very Intelligent Designer. She was purpose-built to fly because the designer wanted us to know.

The Bible says that through His Creation we know Him in our hearts. Romans 1: 18-20 states, “Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal
power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Science is now revealing so many new and wonderful aspects of God’s creation. We might ask the same questions about man".

Philo, given you believe in a theistic creator, that point of view is understandable. But take that out of the equation, and it doesn't really make much sense. Every individual human of course has their own purpose in life, but the species as a whole cannot be meaningfully be said to have a purpose, any more than a galaxy can be said to have a purpose.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky

Without evolution, biology ceases to become a theoretical science and merely a descriptive cataloging of organisms and systems. This is why most biologists "believe" in evolution and some get quite annoyed by people who have no idea about why they do so. Intelligent design and "creationism" has no useful purpose or hypotheses other than to maintain illusions held by certain people.

Y'know, one of the more objectionable bits (in my view) about the christian faith, was the elevation of humanity above the rest of 'god's creatures' as it were.

Whilst there were various passages which instilled the importance of mankind looking after animals and not being cruel etc, there was still the overwhelming impression that animals are just here for our use, and while we may have a responsibility to look after them, they're still little more than items for our own convenience.

I've a number of problems with this. First and foremost, observing the world from an ecological perspective, you see pretty quickly we're just one part of the system. We are an animal species like any other, we just have a higher intelligence.

This doesn't make us better than animals. It just makes us smarter.

So when I see the concept that it's only people who can gain access to heaven, I'm a bit disgusted really. Anyone who has looked into the eyes of a chimpanzee, or even seen the rascally way a loved pet dog can schmooze its owner for food, realises pretty quickly that animals can and do have their own personalities.
The idea that they don't have a soul or warrant an afterlife, and people do, is a little abhorrent to me. Quite frankly, I find it arrogant.

Cont'd

I note some of the earlier comments in this thread - runner implied that the people with a different perspective must just be smoking pot or something like that. Quite frankly, I disagree, and think this is a small minded attitude, perhaps reflected on a certain philosophical background. I probably sound a little judgmental here, but I'm not the one dismissing other views as just a by-product of some drug.

Another common view is to see animals and humans as different rungs on an evolutionary ladder.

I don't think this is right either. Aside from my earlier comments about ecological systems, and the fact we're all reliant on one another, there isn't really any objective measure of what makes one species 'better.'

We can talk about more effective species in terms of reproduction, in which case, ants, influenza, cockroaches and rodents can all give us a run for our money.

You can also view us as simply another species in a niche without a predator - which ultimately results in that species breeding out of control then starving as resources dwindle. Put aside the intelligence issues, and we're a classic case of an introduced pest species. In which case, we're a lesser species than those that fit into the carefully calibrated norms of their ecosystem.

Those that argue humans are 'better' are using purely human means of objectivity. As I said earlier, it's understandable because they're human, but as humans, they should also be able to assess that other points of view may differ, and there may be a case for a different set of assessments.

As a Christian we uphold all creation have a divine purpose and design and makes up an ecological balanced environment. And man in that environment has total accountability for its care. No other creature has that moral responsibility. Of all creatures man is most accountable and is most responsible for its management. Man is the only manager appointed to the Earth and its resources.

However heaven is not a physical place it is rather the state of the spiritual of which only man can experience. Try putting lions of dogs in a community where they do not fight for dominance. Heaven is for instance a state of peaceful cooperation within a society. The Bible does speak of a day when all lions will live in peace with lambs. This is a symbolic representation of what heaven is like.

That's just it Philo. You're saying that heaven is only open to man because it's a philosophical difference due to the fact that we're so very different to animals.

I'm saying we're not. We just like to think we are. As far as our stewardship of the planet, quite frankly, it can look after itself, when we're not messing it up. Again, we're not deserving of setting ourselves apart.

I tend to think it's this attitude that we're different - this attitude that we're somehow better or different to the animals and the systems around us, that makes us think we can mess with our environment.

Thanks Wiz for letting me know about this post.

Whether humans are a keystone species within the ecosystem is debatable - what is absolute is that we are interdependent on so many other species to ensure our survival. Though often we tend to act as if we're self contained.

An interesting example of human intervention was in Yellowstone Park, USA where the locals decided to remove the wolves to improve tourism. The removal of wolves led to a rise in elk population, elk ate all the saplings, leaving a lack fo food and resources for the beavers. The beavers stopped building the "beaver dams" which completely altered the hydrological cycles and led to a drying out of the floodplains.

Nobody foresaw the effect wolf removal would have on local hydrology or wider ecosystem ... interesting for the most intelligent of species.

As an aside, I thought the first species in space were fruit flies (1940's) then later a monkey (c. 1949). Based on the initial posts I find it a pleasant irony that flies and space have concluded my thread.

Corri,
Were there previously native people living in Yellowstone Park, USA before the removal of the wolves?

Corri,
Obviously you are placing blame on human tourists for the imbalance of the Yellowstone ecosystem. You are accusing humans of irresponsible behaviour - which is just my point. Only humans are moraly responsible and as you would believe criminal for the imbalance caused. Is this care for all creatures or mere human greed that is responsible.

Philo, I'm not actually placing blame on the tourists, or anyone else for that matter - it wasn't the tourists but the rangers / government officials that made the decision. Though, I am pointing out that any micro change in an ecosystem will impact upon the macro system ... that the interdependence of all participants is what creates a sustainable and "successful" ecosystem.

Humans are only a small part in a much greater ecosystem, and regardless of our perceived intelligence, adaptability or our view as a successive species - the ecosystem would continue with or without our involvement.

Close, Corri. I think that the ecosystems don't necessarily continue with our involvement if our involvement is destructive enough, though they certainly do when we leave them alone.
This is why I have a hard time with the concept of man as 'steward' of the environment. The environment works just fine when we don't interfere.

Our place in that environment can exist, though in practice it tends to be destructive - though in the long term, that will only be destructive to ourselves.

TRTL ... ah, ecosystems will continue but maybe not in a sustainable way for continued human life.

I think humans have the intelligence to play a stewardship role - but giving a priority to the environment and social conditions over economic drivers isn't traditionally the way we've done things.