Comments on: 10 Ways Nature Thrashes Human Chauvinism

By: Gk

Gk — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:43:55 +0000

My favorite subject. I think nature thrashes human chauvinism or supremacism in many other ways-like the fact that humans prey on each other with such frequency-while other species are far more controlled in their behavior. They dont have the behavioral excesses that humans do. Mark Twain commented on this with his characteristic wit: “Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.�?

I think there is very little discussion about human arrogance because when examined it strikes a chord-in both secularists and theists that they dont like to admit. I have discussed this with atheists and they act like religious extremists when you prick this belief. An atheist who believes humans are objectively superior to other lifeforms is someone who clings to a concept of a personal deity without admitting it. If the universe has no mind-then how can it make value judgements? Its as ludicrous as suggesting that a chair can make a choice between two objects and declare one greater in importance. Science fantasy. All the efforts to show human superiority are entirely subjective and biased-humans claim they are superior, so they are. This is no different than claims of Manifest Destiny or White Supremacy. It relies on non objective, non absolute beliefs-faerie tales essentially. Nature does not favor humans-gravity does not give humans special treatment, nor physics, nor the grave worm. Even concepts of biological adaptation in Nature are not hierarchical-we claim they are to appease our egos and fear of mortality. Just as a further example-there was a scientist who tortured monkeys by forcing them to choose between getting an electric shock, or shocking another monkey. The monkey in most instances apparently refused to shock another. And yet Milgram’s experiments with students showed that humans were quite willing to torture other humans just to appease an authority. Mark Twain was right. Someone who thinks humans are going to build generation ships and become gods need to pick up the newspaper and read about humans who injected their children with AIDS to get out of alimony, or tricked their way into someone’s house and then forced a mother and son to have sex before pouring chemicals into the son’s eyes. Oh but I am sure some crackpot scientist will claim that he can breed imperfection out of humans-yeah, I’ll hold my breath for that feat of magic. lol

By: michael

michael — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:24:15 +0000

I’m especially convinced by #8…

By: Allanx

Allanx — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 03:23:41 +0000

1. So what? A lot of that doesn’t code anyway.

2. Who gives a flying fark?

3. Well, when you see a chimp invent a gun or atomic bomb, call me.

4. It’s wheat. We eat it.

5. When yeast can talk, I want to use it to make beer with. Alcohol that speaks to the drunkard.

6. Once again, who cares. The reason why there are so few mammal species is because we’re the ELITE.

7. Anthill, meet combine harvester.

8. Diversity shmiversity.

9. The dinosaurs went extinct because they didn’t have high-precision thumbs to build generation ships with.

10. It took a hundred million years to prepare mankind for the world, not the other way around.

By: Nature Has No Human Face -- a Nadder!

Nature Has No Human Face -- a Nadder! — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:51:21 +0000

[...] written before about human chauvinism. An example we all engage in is anthropomorphising nature. Usually in giving animals human [...]

By: Carrie

Carrie — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:00:52 +0000

Yes perhaps but I do think we put animals on a far lower footing than they deserve. We have acquired a certain type and level of thinking but humans are on different levels from one another. Induvidual creatures have different potentials and capabilities but yes I agree simply having a purely more advanced brain shouldn’t be the only information we use to judge levels of superiority or advancment Also my point was being advanced isn’t always a positive aspect. Primitiveity has many benifits and different lifestyles provide understanding of different things. I certainly think that though most animals have a far less advanced way of thinking than the human race that they are indeed on our level i.e. most are ‘people’ I mean people in that they are sentient, self concious and self aware rather than assuming only that with human DNA is a person. Obviously sentience is very hard to measure as we judge it from a human perspective assuming anything similar to ourselves is a sign of it but this is at least a starting point. The fact is most animals show far higher degrees of sentience than human babies and we need do still think of our race as superior. I will read that post. Thanks. I just thought it the topic raised some interesting points about how we see ourselves in relation to other species and on what grounds we judge them.

By: michael

michael — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:04:12 +0000

joel — guess i assumed more context on behalf of the reader — a common mistake in the great ivory tower of blogging

carrie — thanks but why would someone think animals have some kind of intricate knowledge? this isn’t really an option ever since modern biology, computer science etc — animal brains just aren’t equipped to do any kind of intricate information processing. i suggest you read this great post which talks about anthropomorphism a bit more. i guess part of the point of my post was that although we DO have the monopoly on thinking, thinking isn’t the only game in town.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:01:21 +0000

I enjoyed this. I’ve never found others who believe that humans are not the most inportant creatures on the planet. I’ve always thought that humans were very arogant in assuming that just because we are different and do not understand other species and we have one form of technology that we recognise that we are superior. Animals may have knowledge and comunication on a totaslly different level that may be as intricate as our but just beyond human understanding. We say our technology makes us the best but truly we are destroying our own home so really we are fouls and animals aid the earths flow and may understand the earth better than us. Great post

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:24:50 +0000

Right. So they aren’t standalone arguments, and are only meaningful in the context of presumed arguments.

By: michael

michael — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:07:04 +0000

yep, reminds me of the great george carlin thing about “life is sacred” only being mentioned by living people who are obviously biased.

2 and 3 are about misconceptions about evolution:
2 — people think that because we belong to the mammals (or apes/vertebrates/eukaryotes etc.) that these groups are the most advanced, the most successful, the most varied in terms of species. ie. the bias extends not to humans (since we are obviously 1 species) but to whatever classification group we belong to. plus another part of human chauvinism is simply not considering how many other species they are and how unlike us they are (you mean all insects aren’t the same?)
3 — this counteracts people who think that evolution is solely progressive and that we’re “more evolved” because we’ve had “more improvements” made to us compared to our closest cousins. this shows that even by that standard, we still aren’t number 1

By: Joel

Joel — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:18:49 +0000

“the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man’s share of that age; and anybody would perceive that the skin was what the tower was built for.”

Maybe not anybody, but the skin of paint might.

I’m not sure that I understand the logic used in e.g. points 2 and 3, i.e.: humans are less variable than other creatures, therefore they are not superior. !!???