What is the point of separation between Homo sapiens sapiens and other animals?

[Elderand]

See, where I have the issue here is "I WANT" it to be this way. In an attempt to change someone's mind, the burden of proof lies with the person attempting to change the other person's mind. It's not that I "want" it to be this way, it's that I genuinely DO believe it this way because to me there is no conclusive proof that humanity is or is not distinct and special from other animal species, and to me "humanity is distinct and special" is the more attractive option to believe in. Also, it is a belief that is largely harmless to my existence at large, so I quite frankly don't give a damn that it's not rooted in concrete fact.

Yeah, the minute you claim things like burden of proof and yet admit you don't give a damn about fact is the minute you've just proven you are not after discussion or actualy learning anything. you just want people to pat you on the back and confirm your own cognitive bias.

[Eldan]

It just seems that most of us don't really see the distinction, nor see why it is all that important.

[veti]

In summary, if someone believes something that

1. The belief hasn't been or can't be definitively disproved
2. The belief is not whatsoever detrimental to them or those around them

Then why give a crap that they believe it? I apply this to other people as well as myself. "If it doesn't hurt anything, then it's whatever" is my golden rule.

The thing is, this particular belief can be detrimental to you and those around you. Most obviously, it can be detrimental to animals; but also to people whom you can be persuaded to view as "no better than animals". You might think now that that's an empty set, but history shows us it's all too easy to persuade people to put others into it.

And then you've, several times now, expressed your passionate personal investment in this belief. That's also potentially harmful to yourself, because there is a non-zero probability that sooner or later, you'll be persuaded out of it, and that will come as a great shock - greater, if we don't put in some groundwork on your behalf now. (You're welcome, by the way.)

As to "the belief hasn't been or can't be definitively disproved" - that depends on what, specifically, the belief is, which is something that hasn't been stated. Many beliefs closely related to what you see to be asking, have been fairly definitively disproved. If nothing else, we're doing you a service by telling you that, so that you know not to try to adopt those ones.

[Lheticus]

Yeah, the minute you claim things like burden of proof and yet admit you don't give a damn about fact is the minute you've just proven you are not after discussion or actualy learning anything. you just want people to pat you on the back and confirm your own cognitive bias.

I admit this unashamedly.

The thing is, this particular belief can be detrimental to you and those around you. Most obviously, it can be detrimental to animals; but also to people whom you can be persuaded to view as "no better than animals". You might think now that that's an empty set, but history shows us it's all too easy to persuade people to put others into it.

And then you've, several times now, expressed your passionate personal investment in this belief. That's also potentially harmful to yourself, because there is a non-zero probability that sooner or later, you'll be persuaded out of it, and that will come as a great shock - greater, if we don't put in some groundwork on your behalf now. (You're welcome, by the way.)

As to "the belief hasn't been or can't be definitively disproved" - that depends on what, specifically, the belief is, which is something that hasn't been stated. Many beliefs closely related to what you see to be asking, have been fairly definitively disproved. If nothing else, we're doing you a service by telling you that, so that you know not to try to adopt those ones.

If I am to be shocked like that, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, and I've come through the other times fine and been stronger for it. But...I mean, all I want to believe is Humans Are Special. That we have something other organisms don't that is actually meaningful. How is that so wrong? And I NEVER view any people as "no better than animals." I'll make SURE it remains an empty set.

[warty goblin]

If I am to be shocked like that, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, and I've come through the other times fine and been stronger for it. But...I mean, all I want to believe is Humans Are Special. That we have something other organisms don't that is actually meaningful. How is that so wrong? And I NEVER view any people as "no better than animals." I'll make SURE it remains an empty set.

Is there anything particularly terrible about the universe if we aren't super-special? I'm genuinely curious here, because I've never been able to make sense of the desire for humans to have some particular thing that makes us totally special and unique and everything.

[Donnadogsoth]

Is there anything particularly terrible about the universe if we aren't super-special? I'm genuinely curious here, because I've never been able to make sense of the desire for humans to have some particular thing that makes us totally special and unique and everything.

Is stepping on that cockroach murder or not?

[warty goblin]

Is stepping on that cockroach murder or not?

Honestly the uniqueness or not of humanity seems entirely orthogonal to the matter of killing animals to me. If humans are something special, then stepping on the cockroach obviously has nothing to do with murder. If stepping on that cockroach makes me a murderer and humans are 'just' another animal, then the wolf is a serial killer born and bred. Strangely nobody ever seems to argue that wolves should all be doing 25 to life for their vicious, cannibalistic gang murders of elk. Apparently not killing and eating things is some sort of homo sapiens' burden to which those lesser animals are not subject. Which is at best missing the more positive consequences of seeing humans as another animal in nature, and at worst actively inconsistent with the principle in the first place.

[Lheticus]

Is there anything particularly terrible about the universe if we aren't super-special? I'm genuinely curious here, because I've never been able to make sense of the desire for humans to have some particular thing that makes us totally special and unique and everything.

Not terrible about the universe, but it means everything we've accomplished as a species--civilization, science, law, technology, philosophy--isn't something we can look on our species and be proud of because any bloody single cell can quite possibly get that far given enough millions of years. It invalidates the notability of our accomplishments, and I think that's pretty dang terrible.

[Mx.Silver]

That is the question I created this thread to help me answer in the first place. Most of you don't seem particularly interested in helping in this regard, but whatever.

'There isn't one' is a valid answer to the thread title question. I think everyone appreciates that you don't like that answer, but the general consensus is that it's still the most accurate answer to the question that's available. For most people, ignoring it would not be intellectually honest.

Some whale beachings, maybe? I've heard pigs can suffer depression, and I believe other animals can as well. Let's have a quick Google search out of curiosity... Looks like dog suicides are fairly well documented. Various bugs have a type of self-sacrifice suicide. And this article will do for now because it's 5.30am and I need to go to bed.

Yeah, given the shared capacity for psychological disorders associated with suicide (and various other behaviours in general) it does seem entirely plausible that some animals have the capacity for deliberate suicide. It's just very difficult to prove, because to do that you'd need to show that the animal is consciously aware of the attempt and that said attempt will kill it, which is not easy to do).

Strangely nobody ever seems to argue that wolves should all be doing 25 to life for their vicious, cannibalistic gang murders of elk.

It's about as strange as why practically no one who eats meat seems to think much about how closely 'pro-carnivore' arguments resemble rationalisations for a pre-existing societal norm of the culture they were raised in.

[Knaight]

Just because we're a carbon based life form, there's no true, definitive distinction between us and other carbon based life forms? The pedantry seems to be getting really excessive to me here if you consider that if we get the ability to manipulate our own genetic material still not rising beyond anything. Look. There are commonalities between humans and animals. There are commonalities between a helium balloon and a sun with helium in it. But a balloon will never do many things that suns do, and animals will never do many things that humans do. We. Are. Distinct. From them.

We're a distinct species, aren't we? The evidence for separating out us from everything else is laughable (lets be honest, I have a lot more in common with a chimp than it has in common with cyanobacteria, if I had to split humans, chimps, and cyanobacteria into two categories based on commonality it's cyanobacteria that gets seperated out).

Not terrible about the universe, but it means everything we've accomplished as a species--civilization, science, law, technology, philosophy--isn't something we can look on our species and be proud of because any bloody single cell can quite possibly get that far given enough millions of years. It invalidates the notability of our accomplishments, and I think that's pretty dang terrible.

That something else might maybe do the same thing that someone has already done one day doesn't invalidate jack. Even if you look within the species, there's plenty of stuff that people do that is really impressive, even though other people also do so. There's more to accomplishment than uniqueness.

This is besides the point though. Whether or not we want humans to be unique has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the matter. That it would be terrible if something was true doesn't mean it isn't true. For instance, it would be terrible if people were dying of starvation and lack of potable water right now. "Pretty dang terrible" wouldn't even begin to cover it. Yet it's still the case, and acting like it isn't is just going to ensure it stays that way.

[Lheticus]

We're a distinct species, aren't we? The evidence for separating out us from everything else is laughable (lets be honest, I have a lot more in common with a chimp than it has in common with cyanobacteria, if I had to split humans, chimps, and cyanobacteria into two categories based on commonality it's cyanobacteria that gets seperated out).


That something else might maybe do the same thing that someone has already done one day doesn't invalidate jack. Even if you look within the species, there's plenty of stuff that people do that is really impressive, even though other people also do so. There's more to accomplishment than uniqueness.

This is besides the point though. Whether or not we want humans to be unique has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the matter. That it would be terrible if something was true doesn't mean it isn't true. For instance, it would be terrible if people were dying of starvation and lack of potable water right now. "Pretty dang terrible" wouldn't even begin to cover it. Yet it's still the case, and acting like it isn't is just going to ensure it stays that way.

Hmm. You know, I don't even know why I think that the idea that someone else is going to do the same stuff as us is that terrible. Also, you're getting real-world scenario all over my philosophical pedantry :P However, I still don't understand how so many of you can state that the premise that we are not unique beings, with nothing to separate us from the rest is an absolute certainty. I would think our lack of knowledge of the world in general would at least allow for the possibility still.

[warty goblin]

Hmm. You know, I don't even know why I think that the idea that someone else is going to do the same stuff as us is that terrible. Also, you're getting real-world scenario all over my philosophical pedantry :P However, I still don't understand how so many of you can state that the premise that we are not unique beings, with nothing to separate us from the rest is an absolute certainty. I would think our lack of knowledge of the world in general would at least allow for the possibility still.

Am I absolutely certain? No. I'm absolutely certain of very few things, most of them involving math. But I can't really think of any compelling evidence that we're especially special to the point where no other life form could possibly ever do what we've done, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. Like the extremely strong fossil record detailing how we evolved from ancestral primates, the genetic information that shows our overwhelming similarity with surviving great apes, the various extinct lines of tool-using hominids demonstrates the origins of our tool use, frequent use of tools by other mammal and bird species, etc. So there's a lot of evidence on one side, and zilch on the other, which makes the best bet that we aren't especially special.

Which I don't think devalues what humans have done in the slightest. After all we did it, not crows or dolphins, and I think what we've done is damn remarkable. So is a monarch butterfly migrating across a continent.

[Mx.Silver]

However, I still don't understand how so many of you can state that the premise that we are not unique beings, with nothing to separate us from the rest is an absolute certainty..

They aren't, they're just not appending their statements with 'of course, it is conceivable that some form of evidence could possible exist that would render this position false'. Because that's generally not a statement that's necessary to make.

[Lheticus]

They aren't, they're just not appending their statements with 'of course, it is conceivable that some form of evidence could possible exist that would render this position false'. Because that's generally not a statement that's necessary to make.

A statement like this:

Thing is, reality isn't contingent on anyone's feelings. Things are what they are reguardless of your opinion on the matter.

To me implies a sense of absolute certainty that I'm wrong and your own position is right.

[veti]

A statement like this:

Thing is, reality isn't contingent on anyone's feelings. Things are what they are reguardless of your opinion on the matter.

To me implies a sense of absolute certainty that I'm wrong and your own position is right.

I'm not the author of that statement, but I think you're misinterpreting it.

I think what it means is that "the strength of anyone's feelings on the matter are not evidence. This includes both you and me. If you want to talk about 'proof', then statements like 'It just MUST BE so' aren't going to cut any ice, no matter how big a font you type them in."

[Gnome Alone]

A statement like this:



To me implies a sense of absolute certainty that I'm wrong and your own position is right.

No, it's just saying that whether us human-peoples are Super-Special Dudes or large predatory mammals that're slightly too clever for our own collective good, that it's true regardless of what we think about it.

Now if that particularly offends you, it might be because you're really emotionally invested in the idea of human exceptionalism or human dominion-over-the-earth or whatever. I mean, I'm pretty firmly in the camp of there being no "special" elevation, divine, scientific or otherwise, of homo sapiens sapiens (the species so smart-nice they smart-named it twice) but if someone pointed out that if puny hu-mans ARE special then it don't matter what I think about it, well, yeah, if that's true then it ain't gonna offend me.

[Serpentine]

However, I still don't understand how so many of you can state that the premise that we are not unique beings, with nothing to separate us from the rest is an absolute certainty. I would our lack of knowledge of the world in general would at least allow for the possibility still.

Not an "absolute certainty", but with the evidence weighted in its favour, combined with the history of study in this area: like I said, every time someone insisted that such and such thing "separated man from the animals", when we actually set or out to look for that thing in other animals, we found it. Based on our record, I have no reason to think the next goalpost won't be demolished just the same.

Not terrible about the universe, but it means everything we've accomplished as a species--civilization, science, law, technology, philosophy--isn't something we can look on our species and be proud of because any bloody single cell can quite possibly get that far given enough millions of years. It invalidates the notability of our accomplishments, and I think that's pretty dang terrible.

Nonsense, it makes it that much more iincredible. We are stardust that coalesced into a bald ape that chance and influence shaped into a being that could crave a reconnection with the stars and set out to forge it. It is mind-bogglingly awesome (I can't even find words big enough to describe it) that we managed to go from a single celled organism surviving in muck to thoughtful beings who can not only construct the tools to take us away from this planet but imagine the implications and possibilities of doing so. Any animal "could" do that, sure, whatever that means, but we're the ones who DID. It took billions of billion to one chances to happen in just the right way for us to get to where we are. That is damn near miraculous, the fact that if it wasn't us it might have eventually been something else (my money's on cephalopods) notwithstanding.

So are you now just after a list of things we can do that other animals can't? Because that is easy enough, at least for a given level of specificity and investigation. Our stamina, for example, is by all accounts remarkable. But the thing I want to make clear is that we could make a similar list for just about every other animal as well - every species has things that make them distinct, that's why they're different species. And at least to me, that is wonderful beyond words, not depressing.

[Crow]

Maybe Lheticus' desire that mankind be something more than animals is the very thing that does separate us from them. Until we figure out a way to determine if animals aspire to be something greater than their brethren however, there is no way I know of that we could verify it. :)

[Serpentine]

Now THAT I find depressing. But as you say, how can we know? Might not the lion think itself "beyond" the antelope?

[Crow]

Now THAT I find depressing. But as you say, how can we know? Might not the lion think itself "beyond" the antelope?

Well, I think my husky believes herself better than I.

[Serpentine]

Well, I think my husky believes herself better than I.

To be fair, she is cuter...

(I assume. Don't think I've actually seen either of you)

[Crow]

To be fair, she is cuter...

(I assume. Don't think I've actually seen either of you)

You are correct! (She seems to know it too)

[SiuiS]

I dunno. Crow's got that gruff gym dude vibe.

[Jeff the Green]

Large populations of us can digest lactose well into adulthood.

(You'll find some sources saying some pinnipeds have lactase persistence, but this is incorrect. Instead, they don't even produce lactase at all because their milk doesn't have lactose in it.)

Edit:
Oh, and we're also the only animal to drive extinct one of every extant class of vertebrates. Probably also one of every major phylum of animal, but that's impossible to verify since we haven't been keeping track of most of them for very long and a couple are purely aquatic. And the only one to render a virus extinct. And the only one to drive another species extinct because it was fun (dodos, off the top of my head; people didn't eat them because they tasted horrible). And the only one to drive a species extinct on purpose.

We're also probably the fastest to cause an extinction. 3.5 billion to 0 in 50 years may not put us in a category separate from the eutherians that invaded South America when the Isthmus of Panama opened, but it certainly puts us orders of magnitude closer to Chicxulub or the Siberian Traps than any species to exist.

[Gavran]

Large populations of us can digest lactose well into adulthood.

(You'll find some sources saying some pinnipeds have lactase persistence, but this is incorrect. Instead, they don't even produce lactase at all because their milk doesn't have lactose in it.)

Wait, are you telling me humans are the best at eating cheese?

I now know my purpose. Yayyy delicious cheeses.

Edit: Aw, crap. Tell me we're the best at tasting cheese too or I'll fall back into existential crisis mode!

[Aedilred]

Hmm.

I'm not sure that an argument from potential really works: while the question may not make it explicit I think it is designed to ask not what separates humans from any other species that could conceivably exist (or could have existed) but what separates us from any other species that does exist or has existed. There is an important difference there, I think.

Moreover, the idea that, since all previous hypotheses on the subject have been disproved (or at least, those that have been tested), all future ones will be, and therefore there is no answer (and thus the question is, ultimately, invalid), is lazy reasoning. That may not be what is intended, but it is at times how things have come across. One can perhaps say without fear that no such property exists to the best of our current knowledge, but that's probably the best we can do.

There is also a danger of missing the wood for the trees, I think. It might well be that there is no individual such property that is unique to humans, and testing for each in isolation might have failed to show one, but there may very well be a combination of such properties that is. Of course, the same could be said of any species to an extent, and the value that is placed on each property for the purposes of answering the question is largely a philosophical one.

That said, the question of scale does deserve to be taken into account, I think. Humans are not the only species to use tools, for instance; we may not even be the only species to use complex tools. But we are the only species to have developed tools that allow us to outcompete almost every other species on the planet in its native environment. Birds may possess the ability to fly, which humans do not, for instance, but humans have developed tools which allow us to fly higher and faster than any bird. That is not to say that no other species conceivably could not evolve capable of developing such tools themselves, but none have done so.

In any case the question as a whole is largely philosophical - and thus difficult to verify, as Crow says. There is also a significant role to be played by religion in the way the question is approached and answered, but obviously we can't talk about that here. Approaching the question as something to be proven conclusively using the scientific method and treated as invalid until such a time is probably missing the point, and likely isn't going to satisfy anyone asking it.

[Knaight]

Hmm. You know, I don't even know why I think that the idea that someone else is going to do the same stuff as us is that terrible. Also, you're getting real-world scenario all over my philosophical pedantry :P However, I still don't understand how so many of you can state that the premise that we are not unique beings, with nothing to separate us from the rest is an absolute certainty. I would think our lack of knowledge of the world in general would at least allow for the possibility still.

I'm not absolutely certain. It's the strongest theory by a ridiculously wide margin, but it could be wrong. However, even if I am wrong, that doesn't change the fact that there's absolutely no intrinsic correlation between what we want the world to be like and what it is. If we're going to bring those closer together, we're going to have to work at it, and in the case of intrinsic specialness that can't be worked at.

So yeah, the possibility is there. It's also possible that we're all living in vats hooked up to a virtual reality, Matrix style. I suppose I can't even technically rule out the rest of reality being a figment of my imagination, like an extreme solipsist. There's no particular reason to consider any of those true though, regardless of how favorable they are (granted, the latter two would suck).

[Xuc Xac]

Lheticus and those of like mind keep saying "we" and "us": we've gone into space, we've deciphered and altered dna, we've built skyscrapers and jumbo jets with minibars. I don't think Lheticus has actually done any of those things.

If we draw the line between "humans" and "animals" and say "humans have built rockets and flown into space" then Lheticus will find himself on the animal side of the line.

To me, the whole thing seems like a way to be rewarded without working for it. I'm special and amazing because people I could theoretically interbreed with have done amazing things. It's like a fan demanding a Super Bowl championship ring because they were wearing the same color shirt as the guys that spent a decade or more training to get on the team and then actually won the game.

[Flickerdart]

If we draw the line between "humans" and "animals" and say "humans have built rockets and flown into space" then Lheticus will find himself on the animal side of the line.

Nobody builds a rocket by themselves. Every single thing any of us do stands on the shoulders of giants, thousands of years of societal progress all the way back to hunter-gatherer days, when some kind souls figured out language and how to make sure their babies didn't get eaten. Every person who participates in the society of a country with a space program has contributed - through taxation and effort put towards maintaining that society through their job - contributes to those rockets that fly into space. "Humans have built a society capable of sending rockets to space" is a more accurate statement.

Maybe that's what makes us different from animals - we're capable of leaving our world radically different from how it was when we entered it. There's an Anthropocene, but no Elephantocene or Dolphinocene.

[Jeff the Green]

Wait, are you telling me humans are the best at eating cheese?

I now know my purpose. Yayyy delicious cheeses.

Edit: Aw, crap. Tell me we're the best at tasting cheese too or I'll fall back into existential crisis mode!

Probably not; that'd probably be something like a bloodhound with a really good sense of smell. Besides, there's very little lactose in cheese to begin with. That's why, for example, it's fine to give to a rat as a treat. In fact, cheese far predates the evolution of lactase persistence.

Maybe that's what makes us different from animals - we're capable of leaving our world radically different from how it was when we entered it. There's an Anthropocene, but no Elephantocene or Dolphinocene.

That's just scale, though. Earthworms and honeybees have radically changed North America's ecology in ways we don't fully understand yet. Beavers cause even greater change, but in a smaller area. If we're not going to sayour language, which is more complex than any other animal's, makes us unique, neither does that.