Welcome to Gaia! ::

My point is that the written word is only part of it, though an essential part. One of the great achievements of Man is the ability to build upon what others have done; To stand on the backs of giants, as it were. Admittedly, this could be replaced by a system of storytellers who memorize the history and knowledge, but that's a lot more complicated and wasteful.

I said "etc" because I am certain you can think of plenty of things that man is capable of that animals haven't accomplished. Including things like war on a large scale, and arguing for the rights of people they don't even know.

Except that, even if I tried to teach a monkey those things, it would die before I succeeded. Even if I spent every waking moment trying to teach it those things, I would fail because it would take too long. Whereas a five year old will learn it as he or she grows, and even has the ability to teach it to themselves through books.

My argument was not that birds are uncomfortable the way they are, I am sure they are plenty comfortable. My argument is that, as a human, why should I bother building a nest when I'm much more comfortable with a bed? Because you were chastising me for basing sentience on what tools a creature is capable of using.

Birds have a special ability to build comfortable nests out of things that come from their body. Sadly, I don't have that ability. But my lacking in that department in no way means that I am lacking in intelligence, nor does the bird's ability to form nests mean that they have intelligence.


Please, animals know that certain plants make them feel better. It's not an active, "If I eat this plant, it will get rid of my illness." It's an, "When I eat this I feel better. When I eat this, I throw up." Just the same as they avoid eating poison. It's through experience, and they do it just the same way they have done it for forever.

Which may, in fact, be the best argument for human sentience: Animals are stagnant. What they do does not change except with their environment. One wolf will do nearly exactly the same thing as another wolf given a situation. Wolfs will never think, "Gee, what if I did this instead of that?" Because why fix what isn't broken? So there is no change, no invention, no... Creativity.

Another thing, and the main reason I have no problem with eating animals: Animals eat animals. You don't go around chastising wolves for eating other animals. So why is it okay for them but not for me? If you say it's because I know better, that just proves my point. Unlike the wolf, I "know better," which means I am more intelligent than the wolf. If, on the other hand, you say that I do not need to eat meat like the wolf does, I point you to that one thread where we previously discussed this (I'm too lazy to look it up.) It may be true that you can survive without meat, but that's not necessarily true of me. And, to bring this back around to cannibalism, even though some animals may eat others of their kind, it is almost always when there is nothing else to eat. Except for rodents, I can't think of any animal that eats others of it's kind when there is plenty to eat of other kinds. (Blech, stupid rats eating their young...)

@Divine: I'm not arguing Pyro's position. This is a thread on cannibalism, not on how correct Pyro's argument on cannibalism is.

Extenction of any kind causes an imbalance, whether small or great. So, yes, it would matter.

I actualy studied that after hearing about the HEM for the first time about a year back. Yes. It would still cause in imbalance. An even greater one. Why? Think abotu what you just said, all the damage we have caused, and the damage we are continuing to cause with cars, facorties, nuclear arms. If the human race just stopped procreating, all that would be left behind and would still cause tremendious problems for years to come. Especialy nuclear waist, which can destroy entire eco system if not properly disposed of.

Man would hae to cotinue on for several generations, correcting the problems, dismanteling the problem causers, and ultimetly trying to return th earth to almost fully naturla once more. By the end of it though, humans will look around at the beauty they can create, restore, and preserve. They will look around at how beautifu life is, at how easy it actualy is to live with nature instead of tryign to dominate it, and will, in the end, want to continue existing and enjoying the sites, sounds, smells, tastes, enjoying all the euphoric sence explotions they will experince on a day to day bases.

As the most intellegent species on this planet (well, the most intelegent with the capacity, bodies, and will power to use this intellegence) we should be this planets care takers, not it's dominators.

I will restate. Extenction of any kind causes an imbalance, whether small or great. So, yes, it would matter.

That actualy reminded me of Mr. Grim's story in Twisted Metal Black o.0

Sucks to be you. You don't have a choice to keep your child from being killed off. Only us uterus endowed do.

One of the more common arguments is that of potential. Currently the most intelligent chimpanzee can only reach the potential of one of the least intelligent humans. That human has more potential despite the fact that they can not achieve it. I suggest you do some looking into The Great Ape Project for further insight.
Apes can not be considered our equals because it is unfair to them. If they are considered equal to human but only have the intellectual capacity of a disabled or otherwise less intellectual human then they will be treated as a second class citizen. There is no way that they would have the same rights as everyone else or be treated equally. As such it would be prudent and respectful to treat them as a class of their own, not closer to nature or dumber than us, but different. If we want to respect the intelligence that they do have, we would need to treat them differently, because they are not humans and that's what makes it so impressive that they can do what they do.