PDA

View Full Version : What is the best thing about animals?



SortOf
08-03-06, 10:35
I wont state my own opinion aloud as I dont want to create arguments, but I wish to see what many people here believe in general.

lastmagi
08-03-06, 11:14
None of the above:

Existing in an ecological system, which does not exclude humans. How the interactions are, exactly, is too much based on specifics to make a general assumption on a whole kingdom and is best for me to leave for another discussion. Sorry.

nice gaijin
08-03-06, 12:06
definitely agree with lastmagi on this one: your poll options seem to say that the only reason animals exist are to serve a purpose for us, which is a very human stance to take on things.

I daresay the thing that animals are best for is living, and that the best thing we could do with them is to respect them.

Silverbackman
08-03-06, 13:03
I view myself as an animal as well as my human brothers and sisters. However we are a higher up animal. It doesn't mean we can abuse animals obviously. Killing a non-human animal for reasons other than meat and self defence is wrong IMHO.

I love animals for loving them as pets as well as the beauty on how they operate in their enviroments. I also like to eat animals :-). As an omnivore I have every right to eat other animals in moderation.

KrazyKat
08-03-06, 14:10
While I would say that animals shouldn't be killed for pleasure like with meat and fur, (except in survival situations), I agree with the sentiment above that 'what animals are best for' is living their own lives as best they can, whether in the wild or as a pet.

strongvoicesforward
08-03-06, 17:35
your poll options seem to say that the only reason animals exist are to serve a purpose for us, which is a very human stance to take on things.


Well said.


However we are a higher up animal.

Why do you think we are higher up? Perhaps you are confusing what humans value with differences in kind.

We are not a "higher animal." We are merely a different kind of animal.

Riddle me this: If we are a "higher" animal, then why do we overpopulate ourselves even when data shows us the dangers of it? If we are a "higher" animal, then why can`t we live as peacefully amongst our species, as say, elephants? If we are a "higher" animal, why can`t we settle disputes without the violence and creation of weapons that cause misery and suffering upon many -- not just combatants but innocent others.

I could go on for a while in this vein and I don`t see how any of that makes us "higher." Sure, we can do some wonderful things, but ability is not a yardstick to claim the title "higher animal." Those things which we are "able" to do are merely things which our species values. My dogs see no value in watching TV or DVDs on them. Therefore, they need not be measured by the technology of those fields.

Likewise, a man sees no value in being able to crush open a bone to get at its marrow like my dogs can do. We are not able to do so and since we can get any precious protein or minerals in another way, we have no need to value that ability. We won`t measure ourselves by that.

We are merely different on a horizontal plane -- not on a verticle plane.

By the way, "higher up" to what???

KrazyKat
08-03-06, 17:58
continuing off topic here a little bit but, as far as I am aware homo sapiens are not the spicies with either the highest population or longest lifespan, two qualities that could be used to judge the 'most succesful animal'.

Tokis-Phoenix
08-03-06, 19:07
None of the above:

Existing in an ecological system, which does not exclude humans. How the interactions are, exactly, is too much based on specifics to make a general assumption on a whole kingdom and is best for me to leave for another discussion. Sorry.

I agree on both points, the poll options are poorly chosen if your opinions/viewpoints do not conform to them, would have been better as a multiple choice poll with an "other" option as well, with some more options/choices in general.

Tsuyoiko
09-03-06, 13:22
I have added a couple more options to the poll - Lastmagi, I hope you don't mind my stealing your wording, but I couldn't put it better :cool:

I agree that animals have value without reference to humans. For myself, I just love animals. The most relaxing thing for me is to play with my pets or to take a walk in the country and watch the wild animals - or even just watch a slug slithering across the ground in my back yard. The way animals just take life for granted is so therapeutic to me.

kirei_na_me
09-03-06, 13:58
I was disturbed when I saw the poll options. :okashii:

strongvoicesforward
09-03-06, 16:13
...or even just watch a slug slithering across the ground in my back yard.

Yes, I like watching little things like that and wondering about the world from their perspective or senses. Interesting to ponder.

Silverbackman
09-03-06, 20:05
Well said.
Why do you think we are higher up? Perhaps you are confusing what humans value with differences in kind.
We are not a "higher animal." We are merely a different kind of animal.
Riddle me this: If we are a "higher" animal, then why do we overpopulate ourselves even when data shows us the dangers of it? If we are a "higher" animal, then why can`t we live as peacefully amongst our species, as say, elephants? If we are a "higher" animal, why can`t we settle disputes without the violence and creation of weapons that cause misery and suffering upon many -- not just combatants but innocent others.
I could go on for a while in this vein and I don`t see how any of that makes us "higher." Sure, we can do some wonderful things, but ability is not a yardstick to claim the title "higher animal." Those things which we are "able" to do are merely things which our species values. My dogs see no value in watching TV or DVDs on them. Therefore, they need not be measured by the technology of those fields.
Likewise, a man sees no value in being able to crush open a bone to get at its marrow like my dogs can do. We are not able to do so and since we can get any precious protein or minerals in another way, we have no need to value that ability. We won`t measure ourselves by that.
We are merely different on a horizontal plane -- not on a verticle plane.
By the way, "higher up" to what???

Well to me a dog has a higher life worth than a fly. Wouldn't you agree a dog is a higher up animal? Similarly humans are higher up to other animals. Any animal with a more developed nervous system and complexity is higher because it can reason and think, and perhaps feel more pain than other lower intelligence animal.

When I say higher up animal I don't mean importances per se. Lower animals are just as important in the natural order of things but higher up animals have more life worth than lower animals.

Sorry, I can imagine a human equal to a dog or a dog equal to a fly!

KrazyKat
09-03-06, 21:52
Any animal with a more developed nervous system and complexity is higher because it can reason and think, and perhaps feel more pain than other lower intelligence animal.
When I say higher up animal I don't mean importances per se. Lower animals are just as important in the natural order of things but higher up animals have more life worth than lower animals.


This is going to end kind of on topic, don't worry. :blush:
Your argument seems to be that life should be ranked in 'life worth' based on thier ability to reason and think, ie thier intelligence. This seems rather arbitrary to me, why should greater intellegnece necessarily mean more 'life worth'? And why is 'importance' different from 'life worth'?

Let me present my own theory. :blush: To make it simple, I would consider something's value to be that which sentient creatures get out of it. I would consider this to hold for anything, even like a banana or a rock. If nothing benefits from a rock, its worthless, if it can be used to build a wall or something it has worth.

Is everyone with me so far? OK, so if we move onto sentient life, say a pet dog. The worth of a pet dog to put simply would be the value the dog itself gets out of its life, the value the owners get out of it and another of other factors.

OK? So then it would follow that the same things can be said about humans. A human's 'life worth' or 'importance' will change depending on how much value they get out of life (not whether they value the life itself or not) and how many and how much other lives benefit from it.
Unfortunately this makes 'life worth' impossible to calculate, but aren't you really happier that way?


So then we come to the question of the thread, "what are animals best for?". I think in a way that this question is asking where or with what is animals 'life worth' or 'importance' maximised. To me this would be enjoying life as much as they can and making as much of a positive beniefit to the lives of others as they can.

Reiku
09-03-06, 22:23
Existing in an ecological system--this actually includes all the other options, when you think about it.

Also, regarding the intelligence debate that seems to be springing up here--how do we know we're smarter than other animals? All this talking and building and pondering doesn't really indicate intelligence to me--it indicates a lack of it.

If we already had the answers, wouldn't we just go about our days eating, sleeping, and reproducing like all the other animals?

It's something to think about... :D

Clawn
09-03-06, 23:40
Animals simply are. No one thing makes an animal better than another as a whole. In certain areas (such as cuteness and all around adorability) cats are better than cows. In other areas (lifespan, usefullness to humans, eating grass, and having plenty of stomachs) cows are better than cats. ^_^

Likewise, although humans can build supercomputers that can demystify the universe and tunas can't, can we, without mechanical aide, swim 40 miles per hour? No, but a tuna can.

You see, even though we humans may be more advanced in some areas, there are always going to be other animals that do other things better.

As for respecting animals, I highly respect them. I also eat them.:wave:

Hideki_Matsui_Beast
10-03-06, 07:48
Why wasn't sex a choice?

Just kidding! :p

Kinsao
10-03-06, 11:16
Animals are "good" for a lot of things depending on your perspective. They are "good" for the "use" of humans for example meat, leather and other animal products that enable us to make different stuff. However, although I eat meat and use animal products, to regard their worth only in that light is incomprehensible to me - as I'm sure it is to everyone here. I'm instinctively tempted to say that for me, the best thing about animals is their natural beauty and interest, and the pleasure I get from watching them and finding out about them. But thinking more rationally (if that's the right word) and taking more things into consideration, I guess the "best" thing about animals is their contribution to the whole environment and ecosystems, because one species' contribution is partly what enables another species to exist in the way it does, and so on and so forth... it's all interdependent. No animals, no world as we know it! :p

alayka
11-10-13, 14:43
Animals are best in so many ways.They are more loyal comparison to human being.They are ecological and also very helpful for their groups.