Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Can they make skyscrapers or even make steel and concrete?
No.
Can they pave roads and create sewers?
No.
They may be able to make permanent homes, but I would hardly call an ant colony a city or even a village.

_________________

No, but they are the only animals to create things like internal combustion engines, computers, laser printers, traffic lights, art museums, etc.

See, LQS, that's the failure of your argument. You're able to point out where animals are able to do things similar to what humans can accomplish, but the problem is that there is such a drastic difference in scale. A parrot can say the word, "Apple," and can associate the behavior of imitating that sound with getting the object, but can that parrot recite Hamlet's famous speech, "To be, or not to be? That is the question."? Or can that parrot discuss the meaning behind that speech? Ants can built mounds that resemble cities, but if you examine one, there is none of the technology that we humans utilize. Sure, a mountain and a mole hill may be the same shape, but they are not the same thing.

_________________

Scale is irrelevant. As long as they do something similar, it's proof of concept.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

No it's not. All it proves is that animals have minute capacities that are similar to those that humans exhibit. It does not prove that they are equal. In fact, I would contend that the difference in scale demonstrates my point completely: humans and lower animals are not equal.

But I notice you also continue to fail to address some of the other points I have made, especially the fact that humans have not only highly developed language skills, but are also able to consider and discuss complex abstract ideas such as mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, and philosophy. While animal instincts may appear to sometimes mimic these human qualities, there have yet to be any conclusive demonstrations that lower animals in fact have these capacities. To you, it seems enough that the lower animals are able to mimic certain human qualities, and you do not seem to wish to explore whether this is actual demonstration of those qualities. To me, a parrot mimicking the word "Apple" and associating with the object apple is not the same thing as discussing Shakespeare. Not by a long road. And an ant building a mound is not the same thing as Frank Lloyd Wright designing a building, or a group of planners discussing a city's infrastructure.

_________________

Similar? You mean to tell me an ant colony is at all similar to the bustling cities of New York?

Anything can make holes in the ground and mounds of dirt through instinctual programming, but it takes true genius to rise above our instincts, live in, and build a city. You can't tell me we are equals, because we aren't. I can squish and ant, while that very same ant can only bite me in a futile attempt at harm. I can shoot a lion or make a trap to kill it.

There are two things that make humans awesome:
*Thumbs
*A big brain

I also will make a list of the levels of superiority as defined by me for your post reading pleasure:
Humanity-Us
Near Humanity-Most apes (not monkeys!)
Pets- Domesticated Animals including feral ones
Other Animals- Wild Animals
Bugs- Insects and Arachnids

That's the scale that I use to define superiority.

_________________

But can you make a hole hundreds of times your size? And how quickly? In some ways I agree with you, but I don't completely agree with your argument.

Many species of animals are better than us physically. It's true that a cockroach can survive a nuclear holocaust. But what would you rather be? A human or a cockroach? Human life may not be as long or as reliable as that of other animals, but wouldn't you agree that ours is vastly more enjoyable?

*Takes a sip of a sweet Coke while watching T.V.* Yes, I agree that we do have very enjoyable lives. Not to mention we do outlive many animals, although that one turtle(which one is it...) does live like 200 years, I bet it isn't as enjoyable in the cold ocean as it is watching T.V. an partaking in philosophical conversations on the Internet!

_________________

Look up siafu.

Didy: Here are some example for you:
The crows invent new tools and pass on this on.
Certain bee-eaters may be able to look from the point of view of a predator.
Crows and cormorants can count.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

So, they are smarter than some animals. Big deal, does that really convey abstract thought more than survival?

_________________

You're still miles away from any animal developing complex tools or concepts, such as the ones we've already mentioned. Has a crow invented a jackhammer yet? Or a socket wrench? Or a power drill? If not, your argument still fails. Can a crow perform integral calculus, or discuss whether .999... = 1? If not, your argument still fails.

_________________

As I said, scale is irrelevent. It is making a tool. Just because it isn't a complex tool doesn't mean anything.

Humans havn't always had jackhammers and crap. Were they less human when they didn't?

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

And as I stated before, Quack, scale actually proves my point. Your simple dismissal of it does not prove your case. So unless you can actually demonstrate that animals are in fact equal to humans, then it might be best if you simply concede here.

_________________

You ignored what I said about humans not always have jackhammers.

Fun fact: humans are classified as a great ape.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

Nice fun fact. It still gives me absolutely no reason to accept your erroneous claim that this makes animals equal to humans.

But throughout human history, there have been complex tools, as well as art and rudimentary literature by way of pictographs. So, while it may be true that early humans did not have the exact tool known today as the jackhammer, it is most certainly known that the potential for creating it was with our ancestors. It only took time for the technology to further develop.

When I see a crow put together his own PC box, then I'll be impressed.

_________________

Just the fact that humans were able to progress like that is something that puts humans above the crows. Did the earliest crows use sticks? If the answer is yes, then they've made zero progress. If the answer was no, then according to you they were 'less crows' back then.

_________________

Should the debate even be about considering other animals as being "equal" to humans? How do you define equality in that regard? Inequity and specificity of talents and traits are what distinguish animals from each other in the first place--including the human animal.

But while it's one thing to recognize the marked differences between humans and other animals, it's another all together to use such knowledge to claim superiority of one's own species over the rest. So what if we can reason? Is that the be-all end-all of existence? Or are we making it important simply because we want to feel special; because it's what we happen to be good at?

There is something almost sickening about that line of "superiority" that you posted, Wes, and that you seem to almost agree with, Dids. I've seen chains like that before, though ones I've seen are a bit more specific, showing how one specific race or religion is superior to another. To me, that chain is just one step away from discrimination within our species.

I have a real problem with the egotism of mankind. I want to slap people sometimes, to tell them to sit down, shut up, and realize that no, you're NOT so great as you'd like to think you are. You're a speck in existence as it's defined by both space and time. You're not that grand. You are not the gods you make yourselves out to be. This earth is not inherently yours just because you bested the rest of the species.

But people don't listen.

Mankind will always seek a way to say that "I am different from and therefore better than you because of X," be that difference species, race, gender, religion, intellectual capacity, capacity for communication, hair style, or whatever else. It's highly immature, and it's all rooted, still, in a highly primitive instinct--the need for dominance as an assurance for survival.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Look, I'm not saying nonhuman animals are as smart as us. I'm just saying that humans aren't special. Humankind has done little of which an equivalent cannot be found in nature.

I already said that the crows are inventing new tools.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

And that is precisely where you are wrong, Quackingstick. There are tons of human accomplishments which have not yet been duplicated by nature. For example, the works of William Shakespeare, the writings of Aristotle, the music of W. A. Mozart, the art of Leonardo da Vinci. Heck, as much as I detest Microsoft's unethical business practices, you can even count the Windows operating system (or Linux, for that matter) as one of the achievements of man that is yet to be duplicated by nature.

And some of these things are not merely a matter of scale. Some of these things are in themselves unique and cannot be duplicated by nature, even if they can be duplicated by printing press, computers, or sound devices.

_________________

When you talk of culture, you are ignoring the fact that the Northern Mockingbird creates its songs by stringing imitations together, and that bowerbirds decorate their bowers. It's art.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

Mockingbirds aren't composing symphonies, but merely imitating other bird calls. That's not composition, but imitation. It sort of makes them the "Vanilla Ice" of the bird world. And throwing stuff together in a nest is not the same thing as creating a work of art, with perspective, scale, balance, and lighting effects.

_________________

No no no.
They imitate, but the ORDER of imitation is what I'm talking about. And bowerbird don't throw things together- they use shells, glass, fungi, feathers, and such to decorate the bower and use berries to paint the walls.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852

But we're still not talking about a mere difference in scale, but a difference in dimension as well. The mockingbird is still only mocking, not creating. And, once again, throwing things into a nest does not qualify it as art, even if it does show some rudimentary creative impulse. But what human beings bring to music is more than just additional instrumentation, and what human being bring to the visual arts is not mere materials, but depth. I'm not exactly sure what it is I'm trying to describe, but there is depth to what humans bring to the creative impulse, a depth that has yet to be imitated by other creatures in nature. Shakespeare's works are more than just words. Mozart's symphonies are more than just tunes. Da Vinci's art is more than just ink and paper. And if you don't understand what I'm talking about, then I can only presume that you are not nearly versed enough in the humanities to understand it. There is, after all, a reason that we call them "the humanities."

_________________

Hey guys, maybe if you say the exact same thing to each other again, the other person will be convinced.

People can do awesome things animals can't. But does that really matter to animals? I'm gonna be hypocritical and repeat the same thing I said earlier: comparing the abilities of any two species is comparing apples and oranges. Our abilities help us do what we need to do, and other animals' abilities get them by just fine in their niches. Why the need to compare?

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

So I'm going to jump on where you said that animals are spiritual equals to humans.

They aren't. In my religion we don't even believe non-human animals have souls, believe what you want to believe but I just don't think you have a valid argument.

Onto emotions: We are the only animal that has a sense of humor (to put it bluntly) and I think that's pretty funny. Get it? Because animals don't have a sense of humor but we do! I crack myself up...

Seriously, we are superior. Civilization, war, peace, government, and beyond are all a testament to our superiority. We are smarter, we have been given reign over them by the gods of many religions, and we just have thumbs and the brains to use them right.

_________________

I'm pretty sure other animals DO have a sense of humor, Wes. But I'll let others with facts (y'know, those things?) back that one up.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

I'm pretty sure it's unique to humans, I can remember reading it in Reader's Digest or something.

Correct me if I am wrong, though.

_________________

You mean those religions that constantly say how wrong all the others are? The religions who all are organized and likely simply crafted by humans? If religion is created by man, and the gods of the religions grant mankind superiority, then it's simply man giving himself superiority.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

But I believe that:
A) One is true, and
B) Because originally we were given reign by that one God of Christianity it has imprinted the human consciousness to put that in other religions.
Edit: Spelling

_________________

*braces for impact*

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

*rubs hands together gleefully*

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?