HHhhhuman value is superior to animals
The idea that human value is superior to animals is primarily a
human-centered perspective known as anthropocentrism or speciesism. There
is no universally objective, extra-human standard for value; rather,
the perceived
superiority is based on a set of uniquely human characteristics and
cultural constructs.
Arguments for Human Superiority
Arguments for placing a higher value on human life typically center on
cognitive, cultural, and moral distinctions.
Advanced Cognition and Rationality: Humans possess highly developed brains
that enable complex abstract thought, logical reasoning, problem-solving,
and long-term planning to a degree unmatched in other animals.
Complex Language and Communication: Humans are unique in their ability to
articulate complex language, which facilitates the sharing of intricate
ideas, the accumulation of knowledge across generations (culture), and
sophisticated cooperation.
Morality and Ethics: Proponents argue that humans are the only species
capable of constructing and engaging in complex moral and ethical systems,
making moral judgments, and acting on a sense of responsibility or justice.
This ability is often tied to the concept of being a "moral agent".
Technological and Cultural Advancement: The capacity for innovation has
allowed humans to significantly modify and control their environment,
develop agriculture, create arts and sciences, and build complex social
structures (political, economic, legal systems).
Self-Awareness and Reflection: Humans have a profound sense of
self-awareness and can reflect on their existence, envision the future, and
pursue spiritual growth or the realization of personal values in ways that
animals, primarily driven by instinct and immediate needs, do not.
Reciprocity and Social Contracts: Some philosophical views suggest that
humans value humans more because people can participate in a social
contract, obey laws, and hold each other accountable within a moral
community; animals cannot be moral agents in this sense, so they are
afforded fewer rights.
Counterarguments and Alternative Perspectives
The notion of human superiority is also widely debated and challenged from
various ethical, philosophical, and scientific viewpoints.
Speciesism: Critics, such as ethicist Peter Singer, argue that prioritizing
humans simply because they are members of the species Homo sapiens is a
form of prejudice called speciesism, analogous to racism or sexism.
The Argument from Marginal Cases: This challenge points out that some
humans (infants, the severely cognitively impaired) lack the "superior"
traits (e.g., advanced rationality, self-awareness) used to justify human
superiority, yet they are still granted full moral status. To be
consistent, one must either deny full moral status to these humans or
extend similar status to animals with comparable or even superior
capacities.
Value is Subjective: The concept of "value" is a human construct, and from
an objective, non-human perspective, all species have intrinsic value as
part of a complex ecosystem. Animals are superior to humans in many
physical and survival-related abilities (speed, strength, natural
adaptability).
Shared Traits: Research in ethology consistently shows that many traits
once considered uniquely human (tool use, complex social structures,
empathy, self-awareness, emotional depth) are present in various non-human
animals, suggesting differences are in degree, not in kind.
Human Harmfulness: Some argue that humans' capacity for complex thought has
made them the most destructive species on the planet, causing mass
extinctions and environmental damage, which could be seen as an indicator
of inferiority in terms of living in harmony with the biosphere.
Ultimately, the belief in human value as superior to animals is a
multifaceted perspective rooted in specific human values and capabilities,
which has shaped human societies and their treatment of animals throughout
history. This view is neither universally accepted as an objective truth
nor without significant ethical and philosophical challenge.
Hence animals style cannot be followed by the human especially the night
residence at deep forest look agreeable. However, senses of approach having
only 5 in animals but 6 in Human shall distinguish the civilization of
mutuality whether inside the forest or outside. However, inside the forest
it is the survival against the 5 senses and not the nature alone. Thus,
ARANYA IS TOUGH TO LIVE EVEN ON A DAY SO LIVING BY NIGHT IS PREPOSTEROUS.
Given the immense anatomical and structural complexity of the brain,
its evolution (and the congruent evolution of human intelligence), can only
be reorganized in a finite number of ways. The majority of said changes
occur either in terms of size or in terms of developmental timeframes. The
cerebral cortex is divided into four lobes (frontal, parietal, occipital,
and temporal) each with specific functions. The cerebral cortex is
significantly larger in humans than in any other animal and is responsible
for higher thought processes such as reasoning, abstract thinking, and
decision making. Another characteristic that makes humans special and sets
them apart from any other species is our ability to produce and understand
complex, syntactic language. The cerebral cortex, particularly in the
temporal, parietal, and frontal lobes, are populated with neural circuits
dedicated to language. There are two main areas of the brain commonly
associated with language, namely: Wernicke's area and Broca's area. The
former is responsible for the understanding of speech and the latter for
the production of speech. Homologous regions have been found in other
species (i.e. Area 44 and 45 have been studied in chimpanzees) but they are
not as strongly related to or involved in linguistic activities as in
humans.
Similar to, but distinct from the social brain hypothesis, is the
cultural intelligence or cultural brain hypothesis, which dictates that
human brain size, cognitive ability, and intelligence have increased over
generations due to cultural information from a mechanism known as social
learning. The hypothesis also predicts a positive correlation between
species with a higher dependency and more frequent opportunities for social
learning and overall cognitive ability. This is because social learning
allows species to develop cultural skills and strategies for survival; in
this way it can be said that heavily cultural species should in theory be
more intelligent.Humans have been widely acknowledged as the most
intelligent species on the planet, with big brains with ample cognitive
abilities and processing power which outcompete all other species. In fact,
humans have shown an enormous increase in brain size and intelligence over
millions of years of evolution. This is because humans have been referred
to as an 'evolved cultural species'; one that has an unrivalled reliance on
culturally transmitted knowledge due to the social environment around us.
This is down to social transmission of information which spreads
significantly faster in human populations relative to changes in genetics.
Put simply, humans are the most cultural species there is, and are
therefore the most intelligent species there is. The key point when
concerning evolution of intelligence is that this cultural information has
been consistently transmitted across generations to build vast amounts of
cultural skills and knowledge throughout the human race. Dunbar's social
brain hypothesis on the other hand dictates that our brains evolved
primarily due to complex social interactions in groups, so in this way the
two hypotheses are distinct from each other in that the cultural
intelligence hypothesis focuses more on an in increase in intelligence from
socially transmitted information. A shift in focus from 'social'
interactions to learning strategies can be seen through this. The
hypothesis can also be seen to contradict the idea of human 'general
intelligence' by emphasizing the process of cultural skills and information
being learned from others.In 2018, Muthukrishna and researchers constructed
a model based on the cultural intelligence hypothesis which revealed
relationships between brain size, group size, social learning and mating
structures. The model had three underlying assumptions:
Brain size, complexity and organisation were grouped into one variable
A larger brain results in larger capacity for adaptive knowledge
More adaptive knowledge increases fitness of organisms
Using evolutionary simulation, the researchers were able to confirm the
existence of hypothesised relationships. Results concerning the cultural
intelligence hypothesis model showed that larger brains can store more
information and adaptive knowledge, thus supporting larger groups. This
abundance of adaptive knowledge can then be used for frequent social
learning opportunities.
Hence Much has been said over the years about what makes humans
different from other animals. Perennial favorites include large brains,
upright bipedal posture, dexterity and tool use, binocular vision, an
articulate vocal tract, symbolic language, and the ability to reason and
problem-solve.
KR IRS 281125
On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 08:30, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*Dark Night and Animals
>
>
>
>
>
> How many of us have courage to enter into a thick forest on a dark night?
> If one is living in cities or towns, the answer, I think is none. But no
> animal is afraid of a dark night with no lights whatever. Because the
> animals depend mainly on smelling and sensing. We lost totally our capacity
> to smell and sense. Animals on the other hand, breathe, smell and sense,
> which develops into the flow of emotions, emotions, which propel the
> positive acceptance of nature. The animals feel and accept. We have doubts
> and questions and we just do not accept. We need some light to get the
> false 3D seeing. We live in the fundamentally false, false created by
> technology.
>
> The fear of the dark night clearly high lights the realty of our cyborged
> living. Science and technology continuously corrode our faith in nature,
> which has extended to distrust in our own organs. We need some machine to
> do the work of almost every organ.
>
> We need machines as organs to live. Animals depend on nature to feel and
> live. They do not suffer from the hysteria of/for new and new and new
> technology. We cannot accept the dark night, as we have forgotten totally
> perception by breathing and smelling. Animals enter a thick forest on a
> dark night without any fear because they smell and sense.
>
> Thanks to Rene Descartes, today we are killing everything natural, and are
> depending only on the 3D reasoning of the Brain. May be we feel that God
> really is jailed in our pineal gland. We are discarding our organs and
> depending only on our Brain and the machines created by the Brain. Nature
> is just economic resource, to kill and use or misuse.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat gpt
>
> Here is a thoughtful, balanced commentary on your piece. If you’d like it
> in a more formal academic style, shorter, or more poetic, just let me know.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Commentary on “Dark Night and Animals”*
>
> Your reflection offers a powerful critique of our modern, technologically
> mediated relationship with nature. You use the contrast between humans and
> animals in a dark forest as an effective metaphor for the ways in which
> contemporary life has distanced us from our own sensory capacities. The
> central idea—that animals rely on smell, breath, and instinct while humans
> rely increasingly on artificial extensions of the body—is conveyed
> passionately and with strong philosophical undertones.
>
> One of the strengths of your piece is the clear, almost visceral image of
> a human hesitant at the edge of a forest while animals move freely within
> it. This opposition illustrates your broader argument: technology has not
> only altered our environment but altered us, eroding trust in our natural
> faculties and tethering us to artificial aids. Phrases like “false 3D
> seeing” and “cyborged living” capture this alienation vividly.
>
> Your reference to Descartes situates the piece within a deeper
> philosophical discourse—the rise of rationalism, the elevation of the
> intellect, and the neglect or suspicion of the body. While this is an
> intriguing angle, you may want to clarify the connection slightly: is the
> problem rational thought itself, or the modern overreliance on detached
> reasoning at the expense of embodied experience? Sharpening this part would
> strengthen your argument.
>
> There is also a compelling environmental subtext: by reducing nature to an
> “economic resource,” you suggest that our technological worldview has moral
> and ecological consequences beyond personal sensory loss. This broadens the
> scope of the piece and gives it urgency.
>
> If you wish to further refine the essay, you might:
>
> - provide a little more nuance by acknowledging the value of some
> technologies, which could make your critique even more persuasive;
> - consider adding a specific example or personal anecdote to ground
> the philosophical reflections;
> - connect more explicitly how reclaiming sensory experience could
> change our relationship with nature and ourselves.
>
> Overall, the piece is evocative, philosophical, and emotionally driven. It
> successfully raises questions about what we have lost in becoming
> increasingly technological beings, and it invites readers to reconsider the
> nature of perception, embodiment, and our place in the living world.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKNrtb1Q80T8m1G61OMtpf3KuhEYpqaYaU7R5uLNn4-FA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKNrtb1Q80T8m1G61OMtpf3KuhEYpqaYaU7R5uLNn4-FA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooaNHtsWEubmN3ZA3zTcARMWtF1D%3DWTVygQqW3peV_EOA%40mail.gmail.com.
