Humans vs. Animals: What's the big difference?

[Never]

First. How can you know what a computer would pick? You aren't a computer. Secondly, computers can't reason, they can only execute programs that humans create.

Personally, if you asked this question to a computer I think the computer would find it meaningless. What does 'kill' mean to an inanimate object?

 

[Stitchface]

Still, Never...I think you'd accept that you're the exception rather than the rule... you see rather more animal rights movements for cuddly mammals with four legs than for creepy insects with six or none, although there must be some sense of affinity with anything that lives... I REALLY AM SWITCHING OFF NOW!!

 

[Roland Gilliad]

These people are the future of america? i am deathly afraid......i guess if i had to choose i would choose the dog and save another young child from almost absolute pain and suffering.

 

[Laurel]

The point I'd make is one directly in line with what I said in my long waffly post earlier...
humans display most 'conscience' towards each other, less towards cuddly animals, and less
still towards something as genetically distant as an insect. Who feels a pang of conscience when
they swat a fly?

I think that's more instinct - we tend to sympathize with things that are like us. That's what gives racism, sexism, and homophobia such deep roots. It's also what keeps a species alive, so it's not a bad thing entirely.

I definitely don't value animals more than people, but neither do I on a large scale value value people more than animals. They're all living things, and they all have the same weight in my book.

I'm selfish - it all comes down to mine, mine, mine. The survival of me and those that I care about. If a big dog attacked Manu and I had a gun, I would shoot it. If a man tried to kill my cat and I couldn't stop him any other way, I'd shoot him.

I'm not against eating meat because that's what animals do - they eat other things. I think that some of the ways we get our meat - i.e. factory farming, killing endangered species such as turtles to eat as "delicacies", etc. - are not only barbaric but bad FOR us. The nasty, unsanitary conditions cows & pigs live in cause the farmers to pump them full of antibiotics and chemicals which end up in the meat that we eat. The cheapest way is not always the safest way - for animals or for us.

As for the testing medicines and cosmetics on animals, I'm against that too for the same reason. There's been several cases in which a drug was tested on animals & approved for use in humans, with fatal consequences. Thalidomide was tested on animals before it was given to pregnant women. A diahrea preparation was tested on chimps, pigs, and mice before being released for use in Japan, and killed several people before it was removed from the market. To experiment on one species and then extrapolate the results to a totally different organism is ridiculous, especially in an age of computer modeling, tissue samples, etc.

The problem is that people are so stuck in their "it's just a COW" mindset that they don't realize the dangers to THEMSELVES that these practices cause. People bitch about the Sierra Club, but then spend their vacations in the places that organizations like that protect. They see it as a "them vs. us" issue, not realizing that we NEED healthy animals (to eat, to regulate the environment, etc.), we NEED clean air, and we NEED a clean environment in which to live. That's not hippie bullshit - that's a fact.

 

[Never]

I never said I was the exception or the rule. I rarely try to guess what others are thinking or feeling as I'm almost always wrong.

 

[Never]

'Almost absolute pain and suffering?'
I'd like to know where you got that idea. In fact, I'd enjoy knowing about the people you've known, as in worked with, had as neighbors, friends or family, that have been retarded and were in 'almost absolute pain and suffering'?

The one's I've known seemed to enjoy their life. The only pain and suffering they might go through is the actions of people who see them as less than human.

 

[Bigdog]

A point to ponder

There are some crucial details missing that would skew the results dramatically. But to answer the original question AS ASKED, my answer is: the dog lives.

Why? I look at this from the perspective of destiny. What would happen with no intervention from me? Most likely, the dog lives and the baby dies. Perhaps this is what nature intended, survival of the fittest. I think our ability to control the life and death cycles of humans and animals alike has brought us to a crossroads. We must now be thinking about how far we are willing to go to save every single life form that comes into the world. Nature does not work that way and something will have to give eventually. Think of any animal species on this planet and what would happen to a deformed or underdeveloped offspring. It wouldn't survive more than a short time before being killed by a predator, exposure, or disease. Mankind has been given the ability to develop resources that have increased lifespan as well as decreased the infant mortality rate. But when you start changing the life and death cycle at the beginning and end, the middle must change also to preserve balance. The middle being you and me (and several billion of our fellow humans). With more people surviving there are less resources to go around and eventually some of us will go without. Maybe not today but certainly soon.

Now, all that having been said, the missing details from the original question could very well change my conclusion.
Details such as:

Whose baby and whose dog?
Does choosing life or death include me killing one?
What is the reason behind having to choose?
Is the future care of the survivor up to me?

I'm sure there are lots more questions, these should get my point across. Please realise that my opinions are not cast in stone, you may have input that could convince me otherwise.

 

[Xander]

Oh man. This is a VERY heavy topic. Anyway, here's my views on it.
To answer the question first. The most logical thing would be to let the dog live. And the infant die. Emotionally it's an entirely different manner. Which I can't even begin to get into. Because there's simply not one single answer to the emotional aspect that will be satisfactory for all.

Animals act upon their instincts. And through that ensures their survival. They never kill more than they can eat. And they rarely kill each other, like humans do. Just like Never stated.
They try to survive in the world, by doing only what they must to survive.
If it's pack animals. The animals do what they most to ensure the survival of the group. That also includes abandoning "defects". This can be viewed as cruelty. But that's not the case. The "defect" will not have one chance of survival in the wild. And the animal instinct knows that. And thus it's more "humane" to let the pup die, instead of letting it go through a year of misery, only to get ripped to pieces by some other animal.

Humans on the other hand. Is the most dangerous animal on the planet. Yes you heard me right. Humans are animals as well.
Yeah yeah, I know there's probaly not a religion on this planet, who will not burn me as a heretic for that statement. But that is never the less the way I see it.
Humans has the same instincts as animals. Only we have our so called, rational mind to control it. We build our own territoties as well as animals. Only we destroy everything around us in the process.
Humans are pure breed carnivorous. And will kill everything and anybody if we're given half a chance. And as the only animal species we gladly kill our own kind. We even do it for sport and pleasure. And unlike any other animal, we kill a million times more than we can eat.
That urge to kill, goes completely against the instinct of survival. Kill your own kind, narrows the chance of reproduction. But do humans see this. Of course not. We're the superior beings. We can't fail........yeah My ass.
Animals tend to work together with nature, all through their lives. No nature means no food and eventual instinction of the species. And no animal want that.
Humans on the other hand, exploits nature, and destroys it, destroys the planet as well.
Look around you, and tell me I'm wrong??
I could go on and on about this. I've had this discussion so many times. And I have a lot of views on this.

And what I can conclude about all these discussions is:
Humans are the only species with the desire to destroy itself. Humans are the only species with the ability to destroy all species natural habitants. And is doing so quite gladly.
Humans are the only species who will be the direct cause to the death of the planet Earth.

THAT'S the difference between Homo Sapiens & the animal species.

Okay, bring it on. I know I'm gonna get crucified for this. So bring the nails and a hammer.

 

[Gingersnap]

I have only my own experiences to guide me in this area. I can without hesitation pick the infant. No one knows what potential that infant has, it just isn't possible to predict. I love dogs and it would break my heart to see anything killed. It is just that I could not live with myself if I made any other choice. I think Laurel is right you cannot imagine what you will do until faced with the choice. I make my decision based on my beliefs I could do that no other way.

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

You guys are definitely a much less conservative crowd than those in class... most would've killed the dog no matter what...
Thanks for your input!