Are Humans Animals?

[HughJ]

Seeing as like 90% of the responses are for animals=humans, I'll take the opposite stance

I want to try to destabilize even the scientific argument. For everyone making the argument about DNA - I think you're overestimating the role similar genetic sequencing has in producing like beings.

If you're making the case that because we share 90+% of our genetic structure with monkeys or even just mammals like pigs, you also have to acknowledge the ubiquity of some parts of the genetic code. For example, someone said earlier that we share 50% of our DNA with bananas, by the same criterion we share with with monkeys. Where's the tipping point in determining what makes a lifeform an animal? Because if it's a simple majority, apparently we're only 1% off in the case of bananas and probably as high as 60% in the case of other plants.

And besides, every lifeform under the sun is carbon-based anyway. That means they're more or less entirely composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, with sulfur and some trace elements mixed in. Even within the realm of DNA, there are only four nucleotides (five if you count RNA transcription). That's just a handful of building blocks determining what makes a fungus, or a plant, or an animal, or a human.

And let's also not forget that fungi are distinguished as a kingdom within the study of biology. That means that mushrooms are actually not plants. Though the well-circulated argument for this is their rigid cell structure and source of nutrients, we also have to acknowledge the fact that they are separate from plants due to their function in ecosystems around the world.

And personally I can't think of a lifeform that functions more differently in the context of ecosystems worldwide than modern human beings.

[Ironbound]

There is a thing known as being the Devil's advocate. It is usually not without purpose unless it has purpose...which makes exactly as much sense as you'd think.

There is nothing to argue here, and no opinion to take when there is fact that is shown to you by centuries of evidence and not even just by the entire lot of us saying that humans are animals because we are animals.

The question you are posing now is about how and why to determine that humans are animals. We have said why; Google will answer how. Your 'tipping point' logic will also be satisfied by asking Google about how life is wired and what constitutes animal life.

Also...

I want to try to destabilize even the scientific argument.

God help you. Because we can no longer discuss let alone argue once you say that. The rest of your post also heavily bases your stance on what you feel and what you personally think, to use your own language. There can be no dispute about what one may feel or think. To argue over that is pointless, and none of us would want to tell a person that the earth is round when he personally wishes to destabilise that fact and continues to suppose that it is flat, despite having already been told and demonstrated and actively shown evidence that it is not so.

[HughJ]

God help you. Because we can no longer discuss let alone argue once you say that. The rest of your post also heavily bases your stance on what you feel and what you personally think, to use your own language. There can be no dispute about what one may feel or think. To argue over that is pointless, and none of us would want to tell a person that the earth is round when he personally wishes to destabilise that fact and continues to suppose that it is flat, despite having already been told and demonstrated and actively shown evidence that it is not so.

How can we no longer discuss or debate the subject at hand because I called into question the argument of the other side, that makes 0 sense

Plus the only unscientific/subjective element of my post was my last comment about how I can't "think" of a lifeform with a global effect and role as unique as humans

I never used the word "feel" and as a fun fact what I "think" is fundamentally tied to what I argue, scientifically or otherwise

Someone can argue for the flat nature of the Earth all they want; the difference isn't their refusal to acknowledge evidence, it's their method of interpretation. If you want to prove them wrong the burden is on you to refute it. Just because everyone in the world says the Earth is spherical doesn't mean it is, it just means it's the best theory we have so far

[Ironbound]

But the earth is spherical. And humans are animals. These are not theories as much as they are proven to be fact. Even if, using the concept of Maya, you want to say that everything we construe as certain reality is actually only our illusory perception of what is a greater reality whose truer nature is likely beyond us.

Also I'm fairly sure that the philosophical burden of proof lies on the one making such a statement to prove it. Asking to prove something by way of saying that it is so unless it is proven otherwise, I.e., shifting the burden of disproof, is a logical fallacy insofar as I know. See Russel's Teapot.

Also I now dissasociate from this topic. There is nothing further I feel I can add without going around in circles, flogging a horse which is stubborn even in death.

[Kurotsune]

You didn't call the argument into question.

You basically employed the following fallacy:

"Humans share DNA with bananas."

"Humans share DNA with animals."

"Humans are not bananas."

"Thus, humans are not animals."

You're using two disconnected premises to reach a conclusion. That's a fallacy. That calls nothing into question but the argument itself.

Even the most sound of the ones trying to play the "anti animals" card are having trouble finding ways to say we aren't animals;

For one, looking at chase's points:

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

True enough. There has never in recorded history, in fact, been a singular instance of a dog approaching congress to legitimize same sex canine relationships. Nor has any other animal.

Doesn't stop over 1,500 species from engaging in such behavior however.

And before you say that "I said there are other animals that do this" you're playing this off as if other animals don't normally engage in homosexual behavior when most animals do so frequently. Most mammals are bisexual in terms of sexual attraction and that serves a survival factor because it's, among other things, how most of them display dominance.

Freud even explored the concept of innate bisexuality - That all human beings are (or were at some point) born bisexual and homosexuality/heterosexuality came later.

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."

Democracy in animals: the evolution of shared group decisions. (2007, Roper, T. J.)

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.

Many animals have a broad dietary ability as you put it, being omnivore is not exclusive to humans.

Remove all of our three main sources of meat (poultry, bovine and swine meat) and let's se if we aren't going to struggle too.

Also, we can only do that because we're the apex predator. We're given the luxury of choice because nothing else can kill us.

In fact, being a picky eater is more cause for extinction more than anything else. Push comes to shove, a dog will eat shit to survive. Some humans will starve. The dog will go on to reproduce. The humans won't.

But ultimately all these points apply to several animals and not a single one of them is unique to humans. How does that differentiates us instead of classifying us, then?

Or are all those animals humans too? Or non-animals?

I get you're not arguing that humans aren't animals but since your points were sort-of to mention the ways we are different than them, that's my contesting of them nonetheless. Because if anything, it just shows we're similar.

Also we're more adapted because again apex predator so naturally we're better at surviving, yes. Thing is ten years from now some wasp might mutate into a super wasp and we can't kill it ever and starts killing and eating us and suddenly that's the new apex predator without it being smart of anything like that.

This is a remarkably pointless argumentation and I'm surprised that it got this far. I find it equal parts amusing and apalling - moreso over the fact that we've people straight up saying we should throw facts out of the window and discuss on whimsy and pseudo-scientific opinion. If we're going to discuss that, we may as well start arguing whether or not Obama is secretly a lizard.

[YinYang9705]

This is a remarkably pointless argumentation and I'm surprised that it got this far. I find it equal parts amusing and apalling - moreso over the fact that we've people straight up saying we should throw facts out of the window and discuss on whimsy and pseudo-scientific opinion. If we're going to discuss that, we may as well start arguing whether or not Obama is secretly a lizard.

To be fair, I think it's pretty obvious all politicians are secretly lizardmen who want to take over the world, general public be damned

[Tartar]

To be fair, I think it's pretty obvious all politicians are secretly lizardmen who want to take over the world, general public be damned

This is obviously false, don't listen to those conspiracy theories. It's so obvious that the UN and all major world governments are secretly controlled by evil telepathic jellyfish and not lizardmen.

Spread the message, the people need to hea *Message has been terminated*

[Tacos]

There are seven kingdoms of life. Humans fall under the kingdom of animalia because we share the same defining characteristics as others in the kingdom animalia. These include the facts that we are composed of multiple eukaryotic cells, are heterotrophic, have specialized tissues, we reproduce sexually, and we are capable of movement. These are all defining characteristics that we all contain. There's no philosophical way around it. Scientifically, we are animals.

[Combat]

To paraphrase one of my personal idols, "Meat is Meat."

[Hexagoen]

Well, if we were to take the scientific definition of an 'animal', then yes humans are defined to be animals.

Even if we were to use our perceived definition of animal, for example dogs, or horses, or birds, then we would still be defined as animals, since we pretty much have the same functions as animals around us (mating, travelling in packs, seeking shelter) just on a more advanced scale.

[Garnet.]

this topic is quite humorous

we're all animals. our definition of civilized is self defined, and therefore subjective to the era and place we live in. to consider oneself above animals is foolish because we did evolve from some less advanced being, one that we'd call an animal in present day. the difference is stark, yes, but we're animals all the same.

[PokeFailure]

If I eat a bannana no one cares, if I eat a human, Pretty solid chance I did something horrific and it's not coming out of my clothes.

Are Humans Animals in the "We're from earth and live on earth and consume things to survive but we are no simplistic enough to be categorized as Bacteria/plants etc." sense? It's not a debate it's a fact.

Are humans animals in the "Oh fuck Fred tastes DELICIOUS" Well if you kill and deep fry a person because you were hungry, I'd say there's a 99% chance you're a very sick person who would be categorized as an "Animal" "Monster" etc. So yes.

Are Humans animals in the sense "We're so different from animals in the way we act that we deserve our category" I'd say yes, Humans at least physically are very different from what humans 15,000 years ago did who were mostly hunters who hunted in packs (We assume anyway) and we evolved from that into what we are today, I don't see any Jellyfish trying to farm the seabad with tractors do you?

Final Conculsion: It all depends on what kind of animals you mean, Also Fred was delicious.

[Deleted User]

Literally: Yes

Figuratively: Some Are, Some Aren't

[WanderingCorvus]

If taking the definition of animal as any multi-cellular organism capable of controlled, independent movement and requiring the ingestion of other organisms in order to survive, then yeah humans are animals. The scientific name for the modern human species is homo sapiens sapiens, which also happens to be the only surviving animal species under the homo genus (we are all homogeneous in the homo genus, science puns!). But yeah, long story short we are animals.

[Alaris]

As others said --we're scientifically animals. The thing is: the scientific method of classification is highly arbitrary. I suppose many of you might be familiar with it, but let me explain it for the ones who don't. In extant forms of life, the "species" are supposed to be the only "real" taxonomic category. That is, a group of populations with the capacity (real or possible) of interbreeding, giving result to a viable offspring. Ok, that's a species. The rest of categories (genus, family, order, class, KINGDOM, and all the others inbetween) are artificial. They supposedly represent monophyletic (=same common ancestor) groups, but, in reality, evolution does not provide clear cutting points. Therefore, humans cut them and make the groups according to our beliefs.

You think it's not true? Let me show you two cases.

First of all, the most typical one: birds vs. reptiles. We all know birds are dinosaurs. Recent research has shown that most of the dinosaurs were metabolically (and perhaps ethologically) more related to birds than reptiles. However, we put them in the phyllum Reptilia. Following that line of thinking, birds ARE reptiles. But we humans have set them apart for our convenience. Extant birds are different from extant reptiles, so it's easy to separate them. See where I am going? Just as reptiles are a paraphyletic group (=not all the descendants within it), mammals could be too. And humans could be a new class? phyllum? or even kingdom?. Us, and only us, make the definitions and establish the boundaries between higher taxonomic categories. Therefore, the argument "it's a scienticit fact" is NOT valid. Scientific classification is highly subjective.

Another example: the species in the genus Homo. That's the worst example of human ego I can think of. Many of them are the same, with no bigger variations than among other mammalian species. All the anthropologists just want to name "their hominid", and therefore, every f****** chunk of bone is a new species. That is an example of subjectivity even at (palaeo)species level. There is, in fact, a study that concludes that in palaeontology, the number of characters correlates to the number of species. That is, if a lineage has more traits to allow differentiation, more species will be made, even if they were not real. Here you go: more subjectivity.

Okay, now that the scientific argument has no validity on this issue, we can start discussing. There will not be facts, but opinions, which I think were the primary goal of this topic.

I personally think that we ARE animals. We are similarly constituted, and share a certain way of "thinking". But if someone argued for empathy to be a valid taxonomic character to separate two kingdoms, I would listen.

Well, sorry for my English. I'm usually more inspired but today I'm feeling quite odd.

[Maelstrom]

Wow. This is this a serious question?

 

Humans are animals. There's no reason to think otherwise.