Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GiglameshDespair]

Is someone able to give me a good reason that humans are superior to other animals?

Humans produced me, of course.

[Felissan]

Whether humans are superior to other animals depends on your definition of "superior". The human civilization is definitely the most advanced one on the planet, but most other criteria have no possible objective proof of man being superior to other species.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We're clearly not equal to animals in fact (our kind have accomplished more and spread further than any other species), and there's not much of a motivating reason to think that we ought to be equal to animals anyway.

A point to make is that it was perfectly alright to kill other humans for killing your chickens for a lot of our existence. The pre-civilization humanity was very much engaged in conflict between bands, and something as simple as killing an animal would be seen as grounds for war, sometimes even genocidal war. The only exception would be someone within your band, which is where the explanation comes in.

You can kill an outsider for any offense, but you can't kill an insider. Not only are they probably your family, but everybody else knows them as well and won't tolerate you killing them for the sake of your self. The small band all cooperate and arbitrate between one another to achieve a greater purpose, in this instance not starving and having people to bang.

A lot of civilization can be attributed to "expanding circles of arbitration". We in our modern day usually can't even kill a stranger who's a foreigner unless they're trying to kill you! How the times have changed. Our greater capacity for arbitration is what makes murder Not Alright for societies, among other behavior. Because we all generally prefer a world where we aren't murdered to one where we are, society has to set a general constraint against murder.

But we can't arbitrate with animals, or only very barely in the case of a domesticated species. The only options to deal with them causing trouble is killing them or relocating them. As living things and omnivores, our species is highly invested in making use of animal products, so killing them is not just neutral but beneficial to us.

Moral superiority is looking at it the wrong way. Moral concepts are an abstraction of human social behavior. Animals don't have morality, they lack abstract enough thoughts or social enough interactions to define a norm and to try and constrain all members by that norm.

[Rolan7]

Whether humans are superior to other animals depends on your definition of "superior". The human civilization is definitely the most advanced one on the planet, but most other criteria have no possible objective proof of man being superior to other species.

Well, what made me think of it was that people were saying that killing an animal for killing your chickens is fine, but if it was a human it wasn't. Just made me wonder why are we magically exempt from equal punishment?

Oh good, I was considering going off on a ramble about technology, advanced social structures, and/or the arts...  Probably sliding into a tangent about the interesting and dumb parts of Humanity Fuck Yeah.


Animals aren't aware of laws, and it's not practical to teach a wild animal not to poach your livestock.  Punishment that won't work is merely cruelty.  A human can be fined, or incarcerated if necessary.
Why not incarcerate the wolf?  Putting the human in prison shows other humans that the behavior will not be tolerated, so they're discouraged from trying.  Capturing one wolf does very little.  Killing a few wolves might even drive the pack away, as they have some group awareness of dangerous areas.

Also, wolf lives are not legally valued as human lives, because we are humans.  We still value wolf lives far more than they value ours.  Yes we kill them, but we also try to protect their general existence as a wild species.  That, despite the fact that they're a dangerous nuisance at times.

[Frumple]

Yo', hold up. I'm pretty sure any number of bugs and bacteria have us out spread and out massed. Any other species isn't quite accurate. Notably macroscopic, maybe a bit closer. Accomplished is a different story, but that's somewhat arguable until we actually get the hell off this planet. Until then (and our eggs out of the single basket) a bacteria strain or insect species or whatev' has equal odds of outlasting anything we build or manage to discover. Probes and stuff are a good start, though.

... also pretty sure there's been some form of other!primate or another, maybe some other crap, that have managed the whole norm propagation thing. Last I checked it looks a fair bit like we're more quantitatively than qualitatively advantaged on that front. Which seems to be a pretty persistent pattern, honestly. We say humans are uniquely (capable of) X, and then it turns out not-us Y actually gives a decent go at it, if perhaps not as effectively.

Just made me wonder why are we magically exempt from equal punishment?

I don't think we are, exactly. It's less magic and more pointy sticks and posses. Presumably an animal that could kill your chickens and keep you from killing it would be able to defend its poultrycidal habits as it pleases. Ninja'd a bit, but eh.

Unfortunately for the things what eat chickens, there's not really anything non-human on this planet we've failed to figure out how to consistenyl kill when it starts eating the chickens we've claimed as livestock/pets/hunting stock/etc. Meanwhile humans have this nasty habit of eventually figuring out how to akido a nine mil into your eye socket if you keep offing their cousins, so we have a lighter touch when it's people doing the chicken killing.

... though that said, I'm pretty sure there's been folks murdered over chicken hustling without subsequent censure social and otherwise. Killing humans for killing your chickens is conditionally fine, basically. Some animals are probably in roughly the same situation these days, actually... just mostly because we've about xenocide'd whatever poor bastard of a species they are.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yo', hold up. I'm pretty sure any number of bugs and bacteria have us out spread and out massed. Any other species isn't quite accurate. Notably macroscopic, maybe a bit closer. Accomplished is a different story, but that's somewhat arguable until we actually get the hell off this planet. Until then (and our eggs out of the single basket) a bacteria strain or insect species or whatev' has equal odds of outlasting anything we build or manage to discover. Probes and stuff are a good start, though.

... also pretty sure there's been some form of other!primate or another, maybe some other crap, that have managed the whole norm propagation thing. Last I checked it looks a fair bit like we're more quantitatively than qualitatively advantaged on that front. Which seems to be a pretty persistent pattern, honestly. We say humans are uniquely (capable of) X, and then it turns out not-us Y actually gives a decent go at it, if perhaps not as effectively.

Bugs and bacteria have us outspread and outmassed as a whole, but they are also divided into many species, of which I doubt any one member exceeds humanity. But also, that's not the actual point of the argument. The point is that humans are in a unique niche and possessed of capabilities that all other species seem to lack. That we're excited about going far into space and meeting aliens because there might be a chance we could eventually communicate with them on the level we're accustomed to communicating with each other I think is proof enough that we're of a different breed than other life on this planet.

[Neonivek]

A lot of some of the ways we treat animals has to do with the fact that we have a very limited ability to communicate with animals.

[Egan_BW]

If a feral and uncommunicative human decided to eat all my chickens, I'd be pretty mad. If a talking fox were to eat all my chickens, I'd try to work it out between us.

[Neonivek]

If a feral and uncommunicative human decided to eat all my chickens, I'd be pretty mad. If a talking fox were to eat all my chickens, I'd try to work it out between us.

I am pretty freeken sure you wouldn't be trying to work it out between a feral human.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yo', hold up. I'm pretty sure any number of bugs and bacteria have us out spread and out massed. Any other species isn't quite accurate. Notably macroscopic, maybe a bit closer. Accomplished is a different story, but that's somewhat arguable until we actually get the hell off this planet. Until then (and our eggs out of the single basket) a bacteria strain or insect species or whatev' has equal odds of outlasting anything we build or manage to discover. Probes and stuff are a good start, though.

... also pretty sure there's been some form of other!primate or another, maybe some other crap, that have managed the whole norm propagation thing. Last I checked it looks a fair bit like we're more quantitatively than qualitatively advantaged on that front. Which seems to be a pretty persistent pattern, honestly. We say humans are uniquely (capable of) X, and then it turns out not-us Y actually gives a decent go at it, if perhaps not as effectively.

Bugs and bacteria have us outspread and outmassed as a whole, but they are also divided into many species, of which I doubt any one member exceeds humanity. But also, that's not the actual point of the argument. The point is that humans are in a unique niche and possessed of capabilities that all other species seem to lack. That we're excited about going far into space and meeting aliens because there might be a chance we could eventually communicate with them on the level we're accustomed to communicating with each other I think is proof enough that we're of a different breed than other life on this planet.

So if a species comes along that's able to think about some form of ascendency to a different plane in some way that we can't, and have plans to communicate with the other species wherever they ascend to, they obviously outclass us and thus we should be treated the way we treat animals?

If a form of life like that exists, we're living in the Cthulhu Mythos and probably will be treated like animals. As I stated before, this is not a moral issue, not really. Even if a human makes the moral decision that they shouldn't infringe on other forms of life, that's a separate kind of thing than as to why humans not aligned to such an ideological conviction will kill animals but not each other.

[Egan_BW]

If a feral and uncommunicative human decided to eat all my chickens, I'd be pretty mad. If a talking fox were to eat all my chickens, I'd try to work it out between us.

I am pretty freeken sure you wouldn't be trying to work it out between a feral human.

You're right. I also wouldn't try to kill it, mostly because humans are hecka dangerous, feral or not.

[itisnotlogical]

Why do some currencies come in fractional amounts (cents) and others only have a single unit?

[Neonivek]

Why do some currencies come in fractional amounts (cents) and others only have a single unit?

It depends on the need.

Places where they have no fractional currency (even electronically) typically have very low value per unit (Yen, for example).

As well in the past it might be so pricy to actually mint coins that fractional coins might be too pricy to justify.

But the best way to put it is... How much is a stick of gum worth?

[Yoink]

Is there any way to search for your posts (or just your username) in a single thread?
The forum lets you search threads, but it only picks up your username if someone else quotes you or mentions it, so it isn't all that helpful. Advanced search doesn't seem to help at all, I don't think. Can you do some sort of custom google search?   

[Reelya]

Why do some currencies come in fractional amounts (cents) and others only have a single unit?

It depends on the need.

Places where they have no fractional currency (even electronically) typically have very low value per unit (Yen, for example).

As well in the past it might be so pricy to actually mint coins that fractional coins might be too pricy to justify.

But the best way to put it is... How much is a stick of gum worth?

Inflation in some areas mean that fractional coins were abandoned. e.g. Japan's Meiji restoration brought in the Yen, the Sen (1/100 Yen) and Rin (1⁄1000 Yen). The Yen gradually devalued, as it was based on a mix of silver and gold pricing, and silver devalued vs gold. And then they lost WWII, which completely devalued their currency. After that they rebuilt the Yen, but the Sen and Rin were discontinued.

The same will happen to USA. It currently costs 2.5 pennies to mint 1 penny. Do the maths on that, the penny is doomed.
https://www.aol.com/article/2012/05/11/should-you-melt-down-pennies-for-profit-not-u-s-pennies-but/20235054/

So ...
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/02/two-senators-announce-plan-to-eliminate-penny-replace-dollar-bi/22022666/
Two senators want to abolish the penny and replace the dollar bill with a coin. You can just see the two dollar bill suddenly being in demand then.