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

[Killer Angel]

Lemmings don't kill themselves.

Why do you want to ruin such a nice misconception?

Anyway, my more serious point on the other animals, stands.

[Donnadogsoth]

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.

True.

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.

Meet nobody, at your service. If animals are the same as humans, if humans are the same as animals, morally speaking, then of course we should be engineering a way to stop predation in the animal kingdom. No, I'm not kidding. Or else we should abandon the pretense of morality altogether and just rape, rob and kill at will as animals do.

Apparently not killing and eating things is some sort of homo sapiens' burden to which those lesser animals are not subject.

Apparent to whom? Those who assert humans are "just animals" or those who know humans are a species-level above all the other animals?

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.

Sorry, don't understand this last sentence, could you please rephrase? Are humans "special" and therefore not culpable for murdering cockroaches, or are they not special and therefore either culpable (if we extend human morality to all our "brothers and sisters") or not culpable (if we extend animal morality to humans)?

[Coidzor]

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!

It's more like Northern Europeans, Bantus, and one other ethnicity that originated somewhere in Asia, IIRC, are the best at digesting milk. Then are you progress from the areas those peoples traditionally occupied in antiquity and the like, you find that you expand into those who can digest yogurt without issue and then further you get to those who can digest cheese without issue, when taken as a whole.

IIRC.

There are some people who can't digest cheese without running into issues due to lactose, but I can't remember if there are any Peoples which, when taken as a whole, generally can't digest cheese without issue.

[Killer Angel]

Another thing in which we differ from animals.
AFAIK, we're the only ones that keep other animals in captivity.

[Grim Portent]

Another thing in which we differ from animals.
AFAIK, we're the only ones that keep other animals in captivity.

Ants take slaves and raise livestock. Does that count?

[Tvtyrant]

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.



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.

Not to mention our environmental changes are small compared to early flowering plants. Entire biomes were replaced from the bottom up.

[Killer Angel]

Ants take slaves and raise livestock. Does that count?

but those serve a very specific purpose, and cover a practical need. I'm talkin more about pets, zoo, and similar.

[Lheticus]

Meet nobody, at your service. If animals are the same as humans, if humans are the same as animals, morally speaking, then of course we should be engineering a way to stop predation in the animal kingdom. No, I'm not kidding. Or else we should abandon the pretense of morality altogether and just rape, rob and kill at will as animals do.

THIS. Every single one of you going "proof proof proof, all the proof points to NO true point of distinction between humans and other animals" THIS is my proof: WE are the ones, the only ones, to even ATTEMPT to suppress the true violent, merciless, utterly impartial kill or be killed nature of the "natural" world. For all the aspects of her that are beautiful and glorious, THAT is the true nature of Mother Nature--a planet and a universe, that is utterly incapable of giving a **** about any life that exists within it. Humans alone have chosen to stare Mother Nature in the eye and say "No. We won't live in accordance to your savagery. We're going to change things." And to a significant extent, we have. For us to have conceived of this decision and then made it, I can't help but think there's SOMETHING truly unique about us.

[Coidzor]

THIS. Every single one of you going "proof proof proof, all the proof points to NO true point of distinction between humans and other animals" THIS is my proof: WE are the ones, the only ones, to even ATTEMPT to suppress the true violent, merciless, utterly impartial kill or be killed nature of the "natural" world. For all the aspects of her that are beautiful and glorious, THAT is the true nature of Mother Nature--a planet and a universe, that is utterly incapable of giving a **** about any life that exists within it. Humans alone have chosen to stare Mother Nature in the eye and say "No. We won't live in accordance to your savagery. We're going to change things." And to a significant extent, we have. For us to have conceived of this decision and then made it, I can't help but think there's SOMETHING truly unique about us.

No one has disputed that as a species we have some tendency towards possessing some sort of morality, especially when we exist within the context of a civilization and society.

Not all humans live within civilizations and societies, though, unless we use a definition that extends it to isolated family bands. As far as I'm aware, culture is ubiquitous amongst humans, but there is no universal culture of humans and there are other animals that have localized or regional cultures.

That said, the both of you seem to be operating under some kind of misunderstanding of the state of nature.

Also, there's not really any point in getting mad at people for pointing out the difficulties in drawing a clear and distinct line between humans and other animals when you asked about where that line is in the first place.

[Lheticus]

No one has disputed that as a species we have some tendency towards possessing some sort of morality, especially when we exist within the context of a civilization and society.

Not all humans live within civilizations and societies, though, unless we use a definition that extends it to isolated family bands. As far as I'm aware, culture is ubiquitous amongst humans, but there is no universal culture of humans and there are other animals that have localized or regional cultures.

That said, the both of you seem to be operating under some kind of misunderstanding of the state of nature.

Also, there's not really any point in getting mad at people for pointing out the difficulties in drawing a clear and distinct line between humans and other animals when you asked about where that line is in the first place.

I'm not mad. I was just excited because I thought I finally had a decent point to make. And just because ALL humans are not civilized and living in societies does not invalidate said point that we are the only species to develop a civilization beyond the extent of a (relatively for the semantical pedants in the room) mindless colony. We are the only species that comes anywhere near being able to possibly do that, including those with high animal intelligence like dolphins. Furthermore, this sentence "That said, the both of you seem to be operating under some kind of misunderstanding of the state of nature" is begging for elaboration. By "the both of us" I assume you mean me and Donnadogsoth. Please, do tell how the views on nature he and I have put forth are such a misunderstanding.

[stcfg]

but those serve a very specific purpose, and cover a practical need. I'm talkin more about pets, zoo, and similar.

Koko the gorilla has a couple pet cats. I think I heard about other cases as well but they tend to be unique as well instead of stuff that happens in the wild.

[Douglas]

I don't think anyone's mentioned this one yet: complex language. The ability to transmit knowledge from one individual to another, and thus build on it over the generations, is sharply limited by the complexity of the shared language of the individuals. Without this, our civilization and technology would not exist beyond a very basic level. While communication has been observed in plenty in other animals, sometimes even quite complex communication, as far as I know nothing else has ever approached the level of human language.

[Dire Moose]

Pets: I seem to remember hearing about baboons raising African Wild Dog pups somewhere.

Language: The usual counterpoint to that one is dolphins, which have an extremely complex system of clicks, squeaks, and whistles that include unique "call signs" for individual dolphins.

[Serpentine]

Another thing in which we differ from animals.
AFAIK, we're the only ones that keep other animals in captivity.

As mentioned, there's evidence of it in ants and other animals.

but those serve a very specific purpose, and cover a practical need. I'm talkin more about pets, zoo, and similar.

Yet another goal post shift. Those are just an extension of the others, and in any case evidence of pet-keeping in other animals exists.

THIS. Every single one of you going "proof proof proof, all the proof points to NO true point of distinction between humans and other animals" THIS is my proof: WE are the ones, the only ones, to even ATTEMPT to suppress the true violent, merciless, utterly impartial kill or be killed nature of the "natural" world. For all the aspects of her that are beautiful and glorious, THAT is the true nature of Mother Nature--a planet and a universe, that is utterly incapable of giving a **** about any life that exists within it. Humans alone have chosen to stare Mother Nature in the eye and say "No. We won't live in accordance to your savagery. We're going to change things." And to a significant extent, we have. For us to have conceived of this decision and then made it, I can't help but think there's SOMETHING truly unique about us.

Eh, not really. I mean, we still have wars and genocides and murders, animal abuse, wholesale destruction of the environment, etc. And, moreover, there's heaps of evidence for altruism and the suppression of violent instincts among other animals as well.
As I said, this is getting towards something I might possibly consider something that counts as "thing that separates humans for animals", but we're still far from achieving that as a species yet.

I don't think anyone's mentioned this one yet: complex language. The ability to transmit knowledge from one individual to another, and thus build on it over the generations, is sharply limited by the complexity of the shared language of the individuals. Without this, our civilization and technology would not exist beyond a very basic level. While communication has been observed in plenty in other animals, sometimes even quite complex communication, as far as I know nothing else has ever approached the level of human language.

This, culture and morality appear to be pretty much where we're up to now, and now that we've started looking for it, we're starting to find signs of it. Dolphins and some birds, for example, use grammar in their communications.
Finally, I would point out that if you're including the qualifier of "complex", you're acknowledging that this is a sliding scale, not a discrete feature.

[Gnome Alone]

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.

It might still eventually be them! It's not like evolution just stopped. We may be the first species to wake up (I mean, I don't think we're Oh So Special but it seems to me that our defining trait is extreme self-awareness) but we're not necessarily the last.

I think one problem with trying to convince anyone away from human exceptionalism is that if you'reemotionally invested in it, then what can you believe in otherwise, right? It'd be kinda depressing, I think, to stop believing something (even if it's false) and then replace it with nothing. So I'm gonna propose an alternative by way of quoting from Daniel Quinn's novel/Socratic dialogue Ishmael, which is practically required reading for any investigation into Human Specialness or the Lack Thereof.

"There is a sort of tendency in evolution, wouldn't you say? If you start with those ultra simple critters in the ancient seas and move up step by step to everything we see here now and beyond then you have to observe a tendency toward . . . complexity. And toward self awareness and intelligence.

"That is, all sorts of creatures on this planet appear to be on the verge of attaining that self awareness and intelligence. So it's definitely not just humans that the gods are after. We were never meant to be the only players on this stage. Apparently the gods intend this planet to be a garden filled with creatures that are self aware and intelligent.

"Man's destiny is to be the first to learn that creatures like man have a choice: They can try to thwart the gods and perish in the attempt or they can stand aside and make some room for all the rest. But it's more than that. His destiny is to be the father of them all. I don't mean by direct descent. By giving all the rest their chance--the whales and the dolphins and the chimps and the raccoons--he becomes in some sense their progenitor.

"In a billion years, whatever is around then, whoever is around then, says, "Man? Oh yes, man! What a wonderful creature he was! It was within his grasp to destroy the entire world and to trample all our futures into the dust but he saw the light before it was too late and pulled back. He pulled back and gave the rest of us our chance. He showed us all how it had to be done if the world was to go on being a garden forever. Man was the role model for us all!"

"In other words, the world doesn't need to belong to man but it does need man to belong to it."

That is a better story to believe in, right?

[bluewind95]

We have the Internet and can communicate with other creatures on the other side of the planet.

... Really, biologically speaking? We're animals and nothing else. There's no absolute thing making us more special than anything else. We're better at many things than other animals, and we're worse at many things than other animals. Our culture, though (or rather our collection of cultures) is unique, and while, yes, the culture of other animal groups is also unique, ours means more to us. It's what directly affects us the most.

What I find... hard to understand... is people thinking that we are somehow the culmination of evolution, that other things would evolve into something like us given more time. Evolution isn't a race towards a specific goal. Evolution is the adaptation of a species into, well, a certain habitat. In terms of living in the sea, a dolphin is more evolved than us, and in terms of living on land, an ant is more evolved than a dolphin is. Evolution doesn't aim to make more people. It's just the process in which a species gets the minimum requirements to survive a specific habitat/niche.

I also don't see how being animals makes any of what our species has done any less amazing. Bee hives are amazing. So are our monuments and temples and other things. No other animal is going to make things quite like that no matter what because no other animal is ever going to be human. Our only claim to natural uniqueness is that we belong to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Nothing else does and nothing else ever will.

[Serpentine]

It might still eventually be them! It's not like evolution just stopped. We may be the first species to wake up (I mean, I don't think we're Oh So Special but it seems to me that our defining trait is extreme self-awareness) but we're not necessarily the last.

I think one problem with trying to convince away from human exceptionalism is that if you'reemotionally invested in it, then what can you believe in otherwise, right? It'd be kinda depressing, I think, to stop believing something (even if it's false) and then replace it with nothing. So I'm gonna propose an alternative by way of quoting from Daniel Quinn's novel/Socratic dialogue Ishmael, which is practically required reading for any investigation into Human Specialness or the Lack Thereof.

"There is a sort of tendency in evolution, wouldn't you say? If you start with those ultra simple critters in the ancient seas and move up step by step to everything we see here now and beyond then you have to observe a tendency toward . . . complexity. And toward self awareness and intelligence.

"That is, all sorts of creatures on this planet appear to be on the verge of attaining that self awareness and intelligence. So it's definitely not just humans that the gods are after. We were never meant to be the only players on this stage. Apparently the gods intend this planet to be a garden filled with creatures that are self aware and intelligent.

"Man's destiny is to be the first to learn that creatures like man have a choice: They can try to thwart the gods and perish in the attempt or they can stand aside and make some room for all the rest. But it's more than that. His destiny is to be the father of them all I don't mean by direct descent. By giving all the rest their chance the whales and the dolphins and the chimps and the raccoons he becomes in some sense their progenitor.

"In a billion years, whatever is around then, whoever is around then, says, "Man? Oh yes, man! What a wonderful creature he was! It was within his grasp to destroy the entire world and to trample all our futures into the dust but he saw the light before it was too late and pulled back. He pulled back and gave the rest of us our chance. He showed us all how it had to be done if the world was to go on being a garden forever. Man was the role model for us all!"

"In other words, the world doesn't need to belong to man but it does need man to belong to it."

That is a better story to believe in, right?

I like that a lot.

We have the Internet and can communicate with other creatures on the other side of the planet.

... Really, biologically speaking? We're animals and nothing else. There's no absolute thing making us more special than anything else. We're better at many things than other animals, and we're worse at many things than other animals. Our culture, though (or rather our collection of cultures) is unique, and while, yes, the culture of other animal groups is also unique, ours means more to us. It's what directly affects us the most.

What I find... hard to understand... is people thinking that we are somehow the culmination of evolution, that other things would evolve into something like us given more time. Evolution isn't a race towards a specific goal. Evolution is the adaptation of a species into, well, a certain habitat. In terms of living in the sea, a dolphin is more evolved than us, and in terms of living on land, an ant is more evolved than a dolphin is. Evolution doesn't aim to make more people. It's just the process in which a species gets the minimum requirements to survive a specific habitat/niche.

I also don't see how being animals makes any of what our species has done any less amazing. Bee hives are amazing. So are our monuments and temples and other things. No other animal is going to make things quite like that no matter what because no other animal is ever going to be human. Our only claim to natural uniqueness is that we belong to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Nothing else does and nothing else ever will.

If you have me in mind in that middle bit, I want to be clear that I completely agree with you, and that isn't at all what I mean. Another animal *could*, and frankly I would be amazed if we were the only one that ever did, but it's not inevitable, it isn't necessary, and it isn't the ideal (because there is no ideal). Other animals aren't like us, because they don't need to be, and vice versa.

[Douglas]

Finally, I would point out that if you're including the qualifier of "complex", you're acknowledging that this is a sliding scale, not a discrete feature.

It is, certainly, but there's a fuzzy borderline somewhere on the complexity scale where communicating arbitrary technological and conceptual advancements becomes possible, and that combined with the ability and interest to create such advancements is unique to humanity.

[bluewind95]

If you have me in mind in that middle bit, I want to be clear that I completely agree with you, and that isn't at all what I mean. Another animal *could*, and frankly I would be amazed if we were the only one that ever did, but it's not inevitable, it isn't necessary, and it isn't the ideal (because there is no ideal). Other animals aren't like us, because they don't need to be, and vice versa.

Nah, actually I had someone in mind who said that they thought it was bad that humans being animals meant that any one cell could eventually do what we do given enough time. I can't actually remember who said it and I don't want to go back and find the name (I had a very draining week, day, tomorrow isn't looking great either, and I'm under the effects of a sleeping aid/relaxant). But uh, whoever said that came across like "everything will eventually tend towards humanity in evolution". And like you said, it's not necessary or ideal (and yeah, cos there is no ideal, I agree) and it doesn't need to happen, though yeah, it also isn't something that's impossible. I think, though, that if anything else gains human-like intelligence, they will not do exactly what we do. Their history is different. They may take inspiration from us, and we from them (if we're still around), but they won't be exactly like us because their very history is different. The exact steps of Homo Sapiens Sapiens will never be taken by anything else in the history of the universe. While this is true for all species, I still think it's beautiful, and it makes what we do important. It's what I mean to say when I say that being animals doesn't make us any less. We're still unique in being Homo Sapiens Sapiens, even if it's in the same way that other species are unique in being what they are.

I, uh, hope that makes sense.

[Serpentine]

Perfect sense. I think we're well on the same frequency.

[Killer Angel]

Yet another goal post shift.

"another"? Did you count more than one clarification from me?

[Grim Portent]

I may have thought of one, we have what is possibly the worst physiology for our lifestyle. We've changed our behavior so fast over the past few million years that our spines, feet and so on haven't properly adjusted and give us a large number of health problems.

I don't know of any other animal like that which wasn't selectively bred by humans.

[Serpentine]

"another"? Did you count more than one clarification from me?

Not you, specifically, but through the whole history of this subject. There's always a new "this is the thing that separates humans from animals", it's always disproven, and then there's always another "well then it's this" or "well no but it's (more complicated version of the same thing)". The goal posts keep on getting shifted.

[Lheticus]

Nah, actually I had someone in mind who said that they thought it was bad that humans being animals meant that any one cell could eventually do what we do given enough time. I can't actually remember who said it and I don't want to go back and find the name (I had a very draining week, day, tomorrow isn't looking great either, and I'm under the effects of a sleeping aid/relaxant). But uh, whoever said that came across like "everything will eventually tend towards humanity in evolution". And like you said, it's not necessary or ideal (and yeah, cos there is no ideal, I agree) and it doesn't need to happen, though yeah, it also isn't something that's impossible. I think, though, that if anything else gains human-like intelligence, they will not do exactly what we do. Their history is different. They may take inspiration from us, and we from them (if we're still around), but they won't be exactly like us because their very history is different. The exact steps of Homo Sapiens Sapiens will never be taken by anything else in the history of the universe. While this is true for all species, I still think it's beautiful, and it makes what we do important. It's what I mean to say when I say that being animals doesn't make us any less. We're still unique in being Homo Sapiens Sapiens, even if it's in the same way that other species are unique in being what they are.

I, uh, hope that makes sense.

I was the one who said that...also the OP incidentally. This does rather make sense, a conclusion I came to after mulling over the allegory of Eden and original sin. We humans "ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" which I took to mean that on our evolutionary path, we started to complicate our own existences enough so that it became necessary that concepts like Good, Evil, and Sin exist--this complication is why "sin" is a thing, hence the "original sin." But all that means is that we humans ate from that tree. It doesn't mean it is impossible for another species to do the same, it only means that no other species HAS at this point. I think I'm finally satisfied.

[Killer Angel]

Not you, specifically, but through the whole history of this subject. There's always a new "this is the thing that separates humans from animals", it's always disproven, and then there's always another "well then it's this" or "well no but it's (more complicated version of the same thing)". The goal posts keep on getting shifted.

Oh, I see, i misunderstood the context of your phrase.
Yeah, there's effectively a tendency to do this.

If I had to choose a marker between humans and animals, would probably be the ability to understand abstract concepts. It's hard even for children (and almost impossible 'til a certain age).

[noparlpf]

Over several instances of casually researching the subject, I've seen it said that what makes us truly different from other species on planet Earth is not sentience or self-awareness, and upon looking into the term "sapience" I find that it's actually well on the human side of the line, rather than being itself the line.

If you accept, like I do, the premise that there truly IS something that truly separates us from the rest of the animal species that can be expressed in words, then please help me express it.

Well if you can't figure out how to express it, maybe it can't be expressed in words.

Seriously, though. If you ask me, it's that Homo sapiens sapiens is distinct enough from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens denisova to warrant a different subspecies name. (A few taxonomists are starting to think of neanderthals and denisovans as subspecies instead of distinct species considering the recent genetic data that shows that some large human populations are about 5% neanderthal or denisovan.)

Sapience and intelligence aren't really relevant to me because they're so complicated and subjective. "Intelligent" doesn't even mean one thing within the human species, forget factoring in other species with different neurology and ways of thinking (corvids, cephalopods, elephants, dolphins). That and I don't really consider most humans to be intelligent anyway, but that's probably more a problem on my end.

[veti]

I was the one who said that...also the OP incidentally. This does rather make sense, a conclusion I came to after mulling over the allegory of Eden and original sin. We humans "ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" which I took to mean that on our evolutionary path, we started to complicate our own existences enough so that it became necessary that concepts like Good, Evil, and Sin exist--this complication is why "sin" is a thing, hence the "original sin." But all that means is that we humans ate from that tree. It doesn't mean it is impossible for another species to do the same, it only means that no other species HAS at this point. I think I'm finally satisfied.

Let's try to avoid reference to specific religious stories...

You know that "morality" isn't uniquely human, right? Some apes have a concept of ownership, and will punish one of their number who steals from another. Some ducks mate for life, and again will punish one who abandons a mate. And any dog owner can tell you about the look of guilt and shame.

I think - and this is my suggestion for an answer to your original question - that all the things that are special about humanity can be traced from what we've done with language. As a species, our language skills are head and shoulders above any other animal, and that's what has enabled every notable thing we've done, from graffiti to city building.

But that is very much a difference of degree, not of kind. Not all humans are capable of understanding complex metaphors, for instance. I think it's entirely possible that there exist many animals whose language skills are every bit as sophisticated as those of some (adult) humans. And if you follow the logic through, that would imply that those specific people are no "better" than those specific non-humans.

Which is why I'm against drawing a sharp line between humans and non-humans. We should, to the very best of our ability, treat all animals "humanely", and yes I'm aware of the irony in that particular word. With humans it's easier, because we have a better understanding of what they want, so we have even less excuse for abusing them.

[Coidzor]

Please, do tell how the views on nature he and I have put forth are such a misunderstanding.

You mean other than the fact that you think rape, intra-group murder, and wanton killing are standard, normative behavior amongst the animals most analogous to humans?

Not you, specifically, but through the whole history of this subject. There's always a new "this is the thing that separates humans from animals", it's always disproven, and then there's always another "well then it's this" or "well no but it's (more complicated version of the same thing)". The goal posts keep on getting shifted.

Well, you know, human understanding of sapience is currently in flux.

Language: The usual counterpoint to that one is dolphins, which have an extremely complex system of clicks, squeaks, and whistles that include unique "call signs" for individual dolphins.

Corvids too, IIRC, they have names for themselves, other creatures, places, and foods from what I recall, and can communicate regarding directions and behaviors. Or maybe it was just crows specifically. IIRC there's a bunch of parrots that also have suggestions they have language of some sort and we've established they have some kind of naming system.

[Jeff the Green]

And any dog owner can tell you about the look of guilt and shame.

Which appears to have nothing to do with either emotion. Dogs have just learned through operant conditioning that making that face means we yell at them less.

[Coidzor]

Which appears to have nothing to do with either emotion. Dogs have just learned through operant conditioning that making that face means we yell at them less.

Dogs. They're secretly P-Zombies of our own making.