Humans =/= Animals

[Thumpalumpacus]

Received knowledge when I took Anthro 101 several centuries ago was that humans, chimps, and gorillas were the so-called "great apes", but I was unsure what was so great about an ape that invented soap-operas.

[legs laney]

Since when did we stop becoming animals? It seems like our culture has developed some vague dichotomy of animals and human. I see so many statements in textbooks such as: "Man vs animals", "man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".  I fail to see the distinction.

I agree that our cognitive abilities are much higher than any other animal on the planet. On the other hand, intelligence is not completely exclusive to homo sapiens. But so what? Given the fair examination of human origins, I fail to see how we are not animals.

Input?

I believe you are combining several ideas into one thought.  1.  We are, indeed, animals and are derived from the ape (nothing will change that).  2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.  3.  There are definite differences between modern homo sapiens and the wild animal kingdom... 4. In the texts you are referring to, I think you may have it wrong; what you probably mean is man vs. nature....   Conflict: It is a problem in the story. There are four basic types: man vs. man, man vs. himself, man vs. nature, and man vs. society

[Cite134]

Since when did we stop becoming animals? It seems like our culture has developed some vague dichotomy of animals and human. I see so many statements in textbooks such as: "Man vs animals", "man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".  I fail to see the distinction.

I agree that our cognitive abilities are much higher than any other animal on the planet. On the other hand, intelligence is not completely exclusive to homo sapiens. But so what? Given the fair examination of human origins, I fail to see how we are not animals.

Input?

I believe you are combining several ideas into one thought.  1.  We are, indeed, animals and are derived from the ape (nothing will change that).  2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.  3.  There are definite differences between modern homo sapiens and the wild animal kingdom... 4. In the texts you are referring to, I think you may have it wrong; what you probably mean is man vs. nature....   Conflict: It is a problem in the story. There are four basic types: man vs. man, man vs. himself, man vs. nature, and man vs. society

I understand that there are differences between modern homo sapiens and other animals. There is a lot of differences between alot of different species.

I don't see a true dichotomy between man and nature. Man is of nature.

[Inevitable Droid]

2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.

My reaction to this will be purely semantic.  I want to emphasize that.  I'm talking about words here, and nothing else.  To whit: if the phrase man vs. animal doesn't imply that man is not an animal, then it must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and zebra.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

An extrapolated reaction, and again, purely semantic, talking about words and nothing else.  The phrase man vs. nature, if it doesn't imply that man is not of nature, must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and oak trees, or between man and oxygen.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

* Perhaps the phrase implies the political conflict between environmental activists and their human adversaries?  If so, this would have the curious effect of implying that the human adversaries represent man while the environmental activists don't.  (Talking about words and nothing else.)  Interestingly, this implication is precisely the accusation hurled at environmental activists by their human adversaries.

[legs laney]

2.  I don't believe the conflict of man vs. animal implies that man is not an animal.

My reaction to this will be purely semantic.  I want to emphasize that.  I'm talking about words here, and nothing else.  To whit: if the phrase man vs. animal doesn't imply that man is not an animal, then it must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and zebra.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

An extrapolated reaction, and again, purely semantic, talking about words and nothing else.  The phrase man vs. nature, if it doesn't imply that man is not of nature, must imply a conflict between man and man, in addition to other conflicts, such as, for example, between man and oak trees, or between man and oxygen.  Do you think the phrase implies a conflict between man and man?*

* Perhaps the phrase implies the political conflict between environmental activists and their human adversaries?  If so, this would have the curious effect of implying that the human adversaries represent man while the environmental activists don't.  (Talking about words and nothing else.)  Interestingly, this implication is precisely the accusation hurled at environmental activists by their human adversaries.

It is my belief that humans feel superior to the other species and therefore we label them as "animals" to the exclusion of ourselves knowing all the while that we are also an animal.  So when asked the question if it is an implied difference between man and man; I would say, "no".  It is understood that the author means "homo sapiens" against the other animals.

[Inevitable Droid]

It is my belief that humans feel superior to the other species and therefore we label them as "animals" to the exclusion of ourselves knowing all the while that we are also an animal.

Ah.  That pesky cognitive dissonance blindsides me every time.

[Ultima22689]

I think we make the distinction because humans like to feel special. It's the same reason why anytime science makes us seem less special in the universe the religious try to kill X advancement.  I remember a few years back I decided to troll a christian forum and started a thread around the blue brain project and how  the brain is nothing more than hardware and software. Didn't go over too well. My arguments were sound of course, theirs was a lot of "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LA! LA LA LA! Others that were more serious prattled on about playing god, It's a shame really. There is nothing wrong with having a huge ego, just as long as you understand you aren't somehow special in the universe. When people think they're special you get holy wars that lasts centuries, like Israel and Palestine, it's insane people can fight that much over something so insignificant as a plot of land.

But you know what? I love humans, they're so adorable, it's really interesting if you walk outside and observe humans with the mindset that you're examining an animal can change your perspective of your environment .

[Cite134]

Ah, I see what you're saying legs. It's just that most people thend to think that there is even a true biological distiction between man and animal.

I see what you are saying also, Ultima, although I do not think we are special at all. Yet, I am not a big fan of our species.

[Inevitable Droid]

I think we make the distinction because humans like to feel special.

I agree, so long as the pronoun we is changed to they.

Same answer with respect to myself as an automoton, merely different favorite things.**

* Leopards, falcons, mongooses, hummingbirds, etc.

** Gigantor, Optimus Prime, Tobor the 8th Man, Astro Boy, etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But what about Reptar?  Huh?!

[Thumpalumpacus]

When people think they're special you get holy wars that lasts centuries, like Israel and Palestine, it's insane people can fight that much over something so insignificant as a plot of land.

In one sense, aren't they trolling each other?  It's kinda like the idiot in the thread who cannot "permit" anyone else to have the last word.

[Cycel]

Since when did we stop becoming animals? It seems like our culture has developed some vague dichotomy of animals and human. I see so many statements in textbooks such as: "Man vs animals", "man evolved from ape (are we not still apes?)".

Input?

I agree.  We are animals.  Anyone who thinks we are not should read Frans de Waal's Our Inner Ape (2005).  Jared Diamond refers to us as the third chimpanzee, and I think he's quite serious.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Diamond is hardly alone.  Virtually all modern biologists classify us as great apes, as pointed out earlier.

[Inevitable Droid]

Jared Diamond refers to us as the third chimpanzee, and I think he's quite serious.

Some biologists think humans may be reasonably described, to some extent at least, as neotenous chimps; I.e., as chimps with some (normally) juvenile traits retained into adulthood and some adult (chimp) traits suppressed.  Here's an article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=being-more-infantile

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, that's actually a pretty old hypothesis.  Gould discusses it in The Panda's Thumb, amongst other books.