Are Humans Animals?

[HughJ]

A debate I've been having with a friend for 2+ years now

I won't throw in my opinion yet but I want to see some discussion

Some arguments for different sides to get you started - don't read them if you already have an opinion and want to write it out:

"Humans are animals. We're literally in the animalia kingdom along with every other consumer. It wasn't that long ago that we came from monkeys, and pretty much everyone agrees that they are animals. Thinking that we're any different is arrogant."

"Humans are animals, even if we're different. The existence of some higher functions isn't enough to justify separating us from animals: we have more in common than we do in contrast."

"Humans aren't animals. The way in which we have spread beyond biome after biome indicates that we are far different from the ecosystem-reliant beings we see around us. Our capacity to reason at a high level is not seen in any other lifeform: even the beginnings of our intelligence, our ability to regularly make tools, is unique. We have more in contrast than we do in common."

"Humans are clearly better than animals. We possess intelligence and skills that set us apart from instinctual beasts, even those we have bred for talent such as dogs. We can even be better at surviving in the wild, a skill we often attribute to animals, as we can form shelter and negotiate situations that would kill most other life forms. We're simply more."

I'm interested to see what people think

[Ironbound]

Simple answer: Yes.

I've already mentioned to you my opinion on this in your bending thread. We are hardly plants, fungi or microbes...though some people I've met might certainly pass for one of the latter.

[mde2001]

This isn't really a question of opinion. Humans are scientifically animals. We might be more advanced in many ways but we are still animals.

Really the source of debate stems from whether the fact we are complex makes us better or more important, but there is really no question over whether we are actually a type of animal.

[HughJ]

This isn't really a question of opinion. Humans are scientifically animals. We might be more advanced in many ways but we are still animals.

Really the source of debate stems from whether the fact we are complex makes us better or more important, but there is really no question over whether we are actually a type of animal.

I think it is opinion

And it's not necessarily whether being so complex makes us "better" so much as it sufficiently dislocates us from the rest of the animal kingdom to consider ourselves entirely different lifeforms

And yes Viri I did allude to this in the bending thread [which I should finish soon]. The loaded nature of the question was meant to highlight people who didn't think humans were different, or didn't think they were better. The eponymous question of this thread didn't exactly fit in a 1-10 scale so it had to be reformatted

But on that thread, people were answering with high numbers on that question, and backing their answer up with arguments... so some people might not be willing to stop at a simple scientific definition

[Ironbound]

Again, a simple answer:

Yes, we're animals. We are not, hoverer, beasts. Or at least, not all of us are, though each of us can potentially descend to that level.

As I said before, scientifically speaking, human beings are animals, the most intelligent, social and advanced on this planet that we know of. That much is undeniable.

But what truly makes a human humane, what makes man more than beast, is not intelligence, it is our capacity for empathy, our moral consciousness, and our awareness of the same.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

It's possible there are other species who are more advanced than we're aware. Octopuses can solve Rubix/Rubiks (not sure which spelling is correct, I've seen both) Cubes.

[Shamitako]

"Humans aren't animals. The way in which we have spread beyond biome after biome indicates that we are far different from the ecosystem-reliant beings we see around us. Our capacity to reason at a high level is not seen in any other lifeform: even the beginnings of our intelligence, our ability to regularly make tools, is unique. We have more in contrast than we do in common."

More or less this. I think it's unreasonable to consider a lizard or an eagle or even a dolphin to be the same as a human

Although it's important to keep in mind that although we're different from animals, we are also similar to animals and looking at them can often reveal things to us about ourselves

[NatJones]

Our DNA is very similar to orangutans so I'm going to go with yes, we are animals per se

[Dark Desire]

Seeing as humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas and far more with different species of mammals, I would think we're no less complex or different then any other living thing on the planet

[Tartar]

Seeing as humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas and far more with different species of mammals, I would think we're no less complex or different then any other living thing on the planet

Honestly, this is a huge amount and therefore humans cannot be compared to bananas as it just means we have a lot of the same proteins to produce cells and express genes. Imagine this, if we compare the binary code of a software program like Word, and something like Grand Theft Auto, there is likewise by sheer stochastic variance a 50% overlap between the two programs. Does that mean that Microsoft Word and Grand Theft Auto are the same software? The answer should be quite clear. Likewise, a human cannot be compared to a banana.

Honestly, I don't like the word animal, it's too general. According to biology, an animal is merely a multicellular motile organism. Anything from the largest of elephants to the simplest of jellyfish is an animal. Humans are by definition an animal due to the way we develop, there's no way around that.

And thus we arrive at such a broad category of species with pretty much nothing in common that the value of the word animal means nothing.

What you're probably more interested in this question: "Should humans treat other animals in the same way humans treat humans". Because if we acknowledge ourselves to be animals then we're putting ourselves on the same level as those we perceive as lesser beings, and we have to afford animals some basic rights that we may not be interested in giving them. Now this is purely a philosophical question and relates in no way to biology which most people have been arguing. So I propose we throw any biological discussion out of this thread due to it being an undeniable fact that humans are biologically an animal.

And thus I guess I'll approach this from a utilitarian point of view and say that we shouldn't afford animals the same rights as humans, as that would impair the development of human society. We should only afford animals rights in the extent that said rights benefit humanity (ie. by increasing biological diversity, or by making said animals better at helping humans). Therefore animals should not be treated the same as humans.

This may be a slightly controversial opinion, but I'd love to hear what other's have to say about this.

[Kurotsune]

Are people actually entertaining the idea that human beings are animals is this a thing that's happening right now am I asleep

Humans are not just biologically similar to animals -

Given we share 98.8% of our dna with chimpanzees, 98.4% with gorillas, 93% with monkeys, 90% with mice. 84% with dogs and even freaking 65% with chicken.

Yes we clearly aren't animals it's not like we share over half our dna with a goddamn flightless bird that lays eggs.

And while the protein part that Tartar has mentioned is correct, that ultimately doesn't change the fact that if we were so distinct a species we wouldn't share over 98% of our DNA with with at least two species of primates.

...And we're also animals from a psychological perspective. Humans still work guided mostly by pack instinct and we still form bands and packs out of survival needs to a point where social exclusion can harm your psyche.

Males' senses of attraction are generally within the realm of physical sexual fantasy so they are encouraged to mate with as many partners as possible to better spread their DNA into the pool.

Females' senses of attraction are generally within the realm of psychological romantic fantasy so they are encouraged to find the best mate so natural selection guarantees the best DNA is spread into the pool.

We're an animal that is better adapted to the enviroment. We're not the only animal that alters the environment for their own sake by a long shot - Beavers and birds and plenty of other animals have been doing that when we were still nomads - and there's hardly anything besides increased intelligence that even sets us apart from animals.

Just straight up google "Hairless chimpanzee" and tell me you see absolutely no physical resemblance. You could literally photoshop people's faces into the freaking things and I'm sure there'd be people who wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Sounds like a neat art project, even.

What baffles me is the idea that this could be considered "opinion". "Animal" is the nomenclature for all species of creatures inside the "animalia" kingdom. Literally all information I've just said aside, we're creatures in the "animalia" kingdom so we're animals. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Lastly saying that a field that has more or less been studied ever since human beings can record information in any way - The study of animals and biology, that is - is a "simple scientific definition" is to afford no merit to the people in this field. It's a pretty complex scientific definition backed up by years upon years of research.

Not only that, it's basically saying "Yeah I get all this proof you're throwing my way but let's throw all evidence out of the window and now prove to me we're animals"

If you want to discuss how "human rationality" is different to "beast irrationality" the answer is also pretty simple. Humans can interpret the world subjectively and animals can't.

i.e. You can look at yourself in the mirror and see a hero, a villain, a fraud, a success, a jokester, a downer, whatever.

Your dog looks at itself in the mirror and sees a fucking dog. And then wonder where the fuck that dog came from.

[Ojama Yellow]

Most of what I wished to write when this topic was first put up was already done by Kuro or others, so I don't have that much more to add.

The way humans are organized now isn't even that different from how it used to be when we were still monkeys- but of course our intelligence has grown. People have spread over the whole planet as well AND are in contact with each other over the whole earth, so yes, that organization needed a little tweaking. But still, we are beings that want the 'basic' animalistic desires: food, water, shelter and space. We still live within groups, and often express disdain towards members of other groups. Just think about racism as an example. We are still evolving because it's necessary if we want to still be able to compete with other beings. This time we are not competing with other species, though- we are competing with members of our own species.

So I propose we throw any biological discussion out of this thread due to it being an undeniable fact that humans are biologically an animal.

That's a problem I see with the title of this thread. Are humans animals? Yes. They definitely are. Zero doubt about it. Should humans still be considered animals? Now that's a more interesting question, one that is able to raise debate.

[NickCrash]

Biologically there is no doubt about it. Humans are animals. We have evolved from the same ancestors with the primates, our ancestors had common ancestors with the canines, the felines, the avians, they had common ancestors with the aquatic life, and the list goes on till the point of major evolution branches, where the important changes happen, thus setting animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and parasites apart. When you share 99% of your DNA with a chimpanzee, you cannot claim to be much different than it, at least biologically.

Do you wish for further proof?

In order to sort humans as a different lifeform, you will need physiological and anatomical criteria. These begin from the most superficial examination of the skin, the most basic organ systems and the organs themselves, all the way towards tissues and cells. We can go even further to examine the organelles, the proteins and even the DNA, but that's reserved for minor differences between already verified evolutionary-close species (usually residing under the same or neighboring genus). So, if you check the organs and tissues between a human and a plant you will find noticable differences. However, between humans and other animals, usually the same things appear; a heart, a digestive track, a blood maintainance network, a central nervous system, and a movement aparatus. That's basically all you have on your body, save for the reproductive organs, and your air filter.

Do you need us to go deeper?

Challenge accepted. Tissue level.

Even if the proteins you create for specific tasks are much different to those of other animals, usually the basic structure is the same, resulting to similar shape of cells in the respective tissues, thus creating patterns that are close to being exactly the same. That does not necessarily have to do only between close species like a dog and a wolf, but it's also that common that you share 55-65% of your tissue structure with Lab Rats, and over 75% with Dolphins. If you decide to kill the poor things, take out their flesh and examine their sceleton, you will find the same structure, even in their extermities, with the exception of the tail, which for humans would be an evolution residue. We used to get insulin from pig pancreas before we could modify bacteria to create it for us. This means we had so similar metabolism to those pigs our digestive system is macroscopically the same. Check how many rats, bunnies, and monkeys are used as lab-experiments for future medication and ask yourself why that happens. If you still have questions re-read this reply, and if it's not enough, open an anatomy book.

We could go even deeper as to the mechanisms in gene transcription, that are so similar among animals, it's a joke we are even having this 'debate'. The fact that our brain is more evolved makes us no different. Others have invested in survival mechanisms as bigger claws, feet, longer tails, extended skin for flying or feathers, kidneys to survive in harsh heat, or skin for the cold, lungs to last longer, or antlers to hit from a safe distance. In the chaotic way matter works, it's not wonder a species evolved with a highly functioning nervous system. Remind you, the renal cortex is that common, that even a fish has it. So even if our claim of superiority is correct, we are also limited.

From a psychological point of view, humans are similar to other animals in almost everything. Our insticts, our needs, and our habits are exactly the same. Even though some animals prefer different lifestyles, because of the area they evolved in and the dangers it hid, most animals are social creatures that either travel or hunt in packs. However, do not confuse the modern lifestyle with your natural affinity for your most primal abilities and instincts. The emotional bond of the baby with its mother in its early stages is as vital as proper nutrition. When the first is absent, substitutes are necessary. Intuitively you might not grasp this at first glance, but it you notice the behavioral patterns of elephants, cats and birds, you'll notice the resemblance. In the first case the substitute is another elephant due to the long gestation cycles of those beasts, and in the second case you'll see the siblings act as substitute, and if that case is eliminated fast, the baby will resort to an object of its choice. If you have seen a dog move around its favorite toy and/or not be able to sleep without it, I suggest you also check all the human babies that do the same.

The only reasons one would separate us from animals as far as our mental abilities and psychology is concerned are the following 2

a. Verbal communication and expression of feelings with it.

b. Higher consciousness, aka consciousness of our consciousness.

The first is more obvious than the second. All animals produce sounds and based on their frequency and timbre, they send each other messages. That's merely 10% of how every animal communicates, as over 90% of our communication is non-verbal, and that's why people pay attention to body language, facial expressions, possibly smell (even though humans have long lost this ability due to our reduced smell over the centuries), sounds from various body parts etc. As a human, you express most of your messages in this way too. However, two regions on your cerebrum have evolved specifically to a. understand patterns of sounds or symbols as speech, and b. co-ordinate your thoughts, vocal cords, mouth, and thorax into creating speech with your mouth, or your upper extremities into creating written speech. That is unique in the animal kingdom, even if those areas are small compared to the rest of your brain (Wernicke and Brocka for those interested). Speech is integrated part of your biology and defines your communication with other animals, without limiting that to humans. You can train certain animals with more evolved cortex to communicate with you, even if their abilities are limited. A dog can answer to commands, a parrot can replicate your speech, an ape can be trained to do complex exercises (fun fact: it has a better 'RAM' than you). You are ahead of them because of evolution.

The second is the ability to understand abstract thoughs and ideas, elaborate on them, apply meaning to them, and learn from them. When you see a flag, you apply meaning of nationality, history, culture, pride, and stereotypes on it. When a dog sees it, it's just a piece of cloth. It has no meaning for it, and sometimes it can't even tell all the colours on it (don't worry, dogs will know if it's an American or Australian flag, however not a Brazilian one). This way humans will contemplate the meaning of happiness, love, legacy, friendship, motherhood. The dog can also understand friendship, but it cannot ponder at its general meaning, the way it affects the relatonship with other people, animals, or objects, and it will never know what it really means when you ask "who's a good dog?". Not only because it cannot understand what you are saying, but also because it cannot understand the concepts of good and evil, unless they directly harm it or someone it cares about, or affect it in other ways it will feel limited, free, or otherwise mending with its basic insticts. After all that's all we end up talking about.

These are the things you see animals around you and probably think you are superior to them. Up to a certain point, you are correct. The spider looks at the fly and knows it has full power over its life. Do not think you are much different. Biologically or Psychologically, your basis is the same, and if I were to post about DNA, you wouldn't even get a chance of rebuttal. A debate or dillemma has to have another side. If you create one just for the sake of it, at least pay some respect to centuries of proof that's coming towards you, and the people that work to preserve said evidence.

[Combat]

Well, we aren't plants.

[Adventurer]

Did not read everything here to be honest. I'm too lazy today.

But to keep it simple, yes, humans are animals.

[Tartar]

In another universe:

Sentient banana 1: Do you think humans should be counted as plants?

Sentient banana 2: No, impossible, we have too many genetic differences, and besides, humans do not possess the mental faculties of us bananas.

Sentient banana 1: True, humans don't can't express the complex ideas us bananas can, nor can they form meaningful relationships like us. Nor do they possess the intelligence to not ruin their own planet. Incompetence must run deep in the human genome.

Sentient banana 2: Why do you ponder whether humans are plants then?

Sentient banana 1: I just can't shake the feeling that since they share 50% of our DNA, they are undoubtedly closer related to us than we give them credit for.

[Alistair]

Scientifically, yeah ofc we are animals. Many people on this thread demonstrated it brilliantly. There would be absolutely no point in trying to say otherwise.

Yet Humans are intellectually capable of way more stuff than most animals. Read @NickCrash's take on self-consciousness, it's very good.

Just one example: the ability to think about and ask existential questions. To my knowledge, the only non human creature that ever managed to do that was a parrot. It asked its caretaker what color it was. It's an interesting case, but then again we can't brush off the possibility of someone simply teaching the parrot to repeat this question. There is no other evidence of animal self-consciousness.

Logical conclusion: Humans seem to have abilities unmatched in the animal reign, which means we have at least one caracteristic that discriminates us from other animals. We are animals, yet a bit more than that.

[DemICE]

It is a matter of perspective.

Our species created words. And chose what what will each word will refer to.

Some may think animals refer to any non-human non-insect sentient organism that walks on land. From their perspective humans are not animals.

Some may want to include humans in the group the word refers to. From theirs', they are animals.

We might want to research the word, first. And the purpose for which it was originally created.

Because the fact that we share most of our DNA, and other similarities, with other lifeforms, is .well.., a fact.

Scientifically? I view humans as a highly evolved subspecies of primates, which are in the greater category of big mammals.

I don't even use the word "animal". Cause it does not strengthen, or weaken the afformentioned view, since it does not add any scientific facts.

It is merely an everyday casual word that can be interpreted differently.

Edited November 26, 2016 by DemICE

[Felicity]

Doesn't even matter. I'm still going to wake up everyday, still going to eat breakfast, still gonna go through my daily routine. Whether I'm an animal or not.

[Eviora]

That depends entirely on your definitions. There is no question about our nature here, only a question of whether or not the labels you choose would apply to us.

[Combat]

“If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?"

― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

This quote kept coming up for me when I was considering this. By all definition, humans are animals, since we fit into that biological niche. Whether or not we're more advanced than other animals is also not up for debate.

[Alistair]

This quote kept coming up for me when I was considering this. By all definition, humans are animals, since we fit into that biological niche. Whether or not we're more advanced than other animals is also not up for debate.

Again that depends on your definition of "advanced". The term generally carries a positive connotation and is meaningful only when put into perspective, which is why I would rather choose to describe Humans as possessing abilities unseen among other animals. More neutral and more appropriate imo.

[Yours Truly]

I think that members of the human race are animals yes; there's not really much of an argument there; I think the main difference between other animals and members of the human race is that we can afford to spend time talking about whether or not we count as animals; as opposed to say... Hunting down an animal using our bare hands and eating it.

[Chase]

As someone who would consider myself an anthropocentric (under the assumption that there isn't enough evidence for the existence of god(s) - a completely different argument) person - I don't think the argument can be made that man is different from animal physically. DNA similarities, as Kuro pointed out, shut down that argument extremely quickly.

Psychologically too - there are some species outside of humanity that have astounding intelligence, meaning our minds alone aren't a solid argument against being like the other beings on this world.

There are some interesting things that I would point out. Several of you seem to think that humanity falls in line with the rest of the animal kingdom in purpose - to prolong humankind in the same manner other species attempt to prolong their races.

Kuro specifically brought up males and females generally mating with spreading the best possible genes in mind.

There are some things that I want to call you guys on here.

• While it is absolutely true that there are other animals other than humans that do this, giving off homosexual tendencies serves no purpose in prolonging humankind. Yet humanity is the only species I know that works tirelessly to legitimize it as a normal occurrence despite serving a negative effect on reproduction rate (currently - maybe it will become possible to make this type of relationship foster offspring at the same pace as heterosexual mating does in the future.) The reasons people engage in homosexual relationships however seem to be an acknowledgement of the abstract - that they love that person's personality, -or- (and I am in no way intending to sleight anyone by saying this - keep your guns in the holster, please) you have a different, counter-intuitive preference in physical attributes (you prefer physical attributes of the same sex as opposed to the opposite/another sex.) If we're looking at this from a goal perspective of furthering the human race - I fail to see how you can justify relationships that don't bare children the most efficiently as normal animal behavior very cleanly. The only real argument there is that humans aren't the only ones who engage in homosexual relationships - but that list is significantly smaller than the animal kingdom at large.
• Humans also are one of the few species to have personal attachment to things like democracy and fairness - whereas you see other members of the animal kingdom run under structures of "alpha males" or "queen bees." The argument is certainly there that for humanity to prolong its existence the best possible way is to ensure everyone gets the resources they need to survive, but where do laws and morality fit into that picture? Kuro mentioned the major difference between humans and animals being subjection, and even if morality -is- subjective that is largely damning to the argument that humans are not different from animals because animals are largely immoral beings. Humans have a sense of what's right and what's wrong beyond the need to prolong the human race. Animals - if they display moral qualities - are only doing so for survival purposes.
• Man also benefits from being extremely broad with dietary ability. We are able to decide what we want to consume on the fly, and prepare it beyond survival necessity into a dish that is not only nutrient providing, but pleasurable to consume. Animals - especially those in isolated ecosystems - struggle if a part of their normal food chain is removed.

At the end of the day, we are very much like the animals around us. A theist like myself can even affirm that looking at the scientific evidence we have to today. I would argue that humanity has a different purpose and larger ability to survive however.

[Tacos]

Humans by definition are animals. You're welcome.