RSS
Home
Are humans superior to animals?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons.-Douglas Adams, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
.png)
That humans are supposedly "superior" to animals is a common bland moral argument for the exploitation of animals. However the idea of "superiority" is a vague and subjectively biased term. What does it mean to be a superior species if we are such to animals?
Brain size?
A popular myth of neurobiology is that the size of the brain of a species correlates with the intelligence of the species. This myth can easily be brought to criticism by the fact our neanderthal ancestors and elephants have much larger brains than we. In fact, see the table below to understand just how diverse brain sizes can be among supposedly "inferior" animals. The reason for brain size differences is due more to the proportion of the species itself or encephalization. This is due to non-thinking functions such as motor innervations. So a smaller animal will have a smaller brain generally speaking. What is more important to determining the complexity of an organism has more to do with the development of certain areas.
| Species | Brain mass (g) |
| Adult human | 1,300 - 1,400 |
| Sperm whale | 7,800 |
| Elephant | 4,783 |
| Bottlenosed dolphin | 1,500 - 1,600 |
| Bowhead Whale | 2,738 |
| Goldfish | 0.097 |
Superiority
As I will begin to explain, the idea of superiority is a subjective one. Of course we humans like to think we are important but many of us believe we are the most important. Would it really be so bad if we were to find out this weren't the case?
If by "superiority" we mean there are more humans than any other single species, this is easily debunked by examining the underside of a rock where a small city of a single species can be found. If superiority means the species is more widely dispersed geographically, take a look at the distribution of species like the horsefly who appears on nearly every continent and country.
If superiority were argued to mean our ability to dominate and control other animals, consider the HIV virus or epidemic bacteria. What is left is moral arguments for a certain spiritual knighting of the human race over other animals; such as one given by religion (and I'm not going there.)
Just how different are we?
This video shows one of many of the hidden abilities in the animal kingdom of artisitic creativity and transitive pictographic replication (a.k.a. drawing stuff)
The specialized brain
There is indeed something unique about humans, for better or worse. So what is it? Of course, there are uniquenesses to numerous species. While I can derive a quadratic equation, a termite can digest the cellulose of wood. So let's narrow down the search to a morphological difference in thinking ability.
The best answer I can give you is corticalization. That is, most mammals have a cerebral cortex, but ours is quite large in proportion to the rest of our brain. The cerebral cortex, especially the most recently-evolved neocortex is the cause for the human specialization for creativity, language, and deduction.
Ethical implications
Despite all this neurobiology, we're still left with the ethical implications of these differences and how it relates to our exploitation of nonhuman animals. Conversely, we should look at the ways in which we are not different from the animals we exploit. The glaringly obvious similarity is sentience the ability to sense pain and the environment in the central nervous system (as opposed to the peripheral nervous system.)
So while a human can brag about their neocortex, the pain centers of our brain are no evolutionary feat. Cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys, and even the bees we use for honey are all just as sentient as we are. While there is variation, there is no signficant difference in the functioning of nociceptors or the areas of the brain itself like the limbic and somatosensory regions which lie separate from the neocortex.
The point is that a egotistical complex of "superiority" does not make for a sufficient moral argument against the imperative to free animals from exploitation. The consumption of animals and animal products is not necessary for survival, and, as opposed to popular belief, did not account for a significant proportion of calories in our hominid ancestors. Some ancient civilizations actually lived for centuries on incidentally vegan diets. Imagine the difficulty of harvesting animals in a preagrarian society versus today. Only in some settlements but not other could this be efficient.
Beyond that, because we are able does not mean something is right. Nor does our legal ability to perform an act make for a just law. Because you have the "right to do" does not make it "right to do". When animals like dairy cows are made into an economic commodity, they feel the pain of losing their young to a veal farm. They feel the physical pain of knives, blades, and prods. An animal feels the loneliness of slavery and the violation of losing their life--whether it follow a free-range, cage-free, or factory farmed life.
No matter how superior you may believe animals are to humans, no animal suffers more intelligently than another. For this reason, the humble conclusion must begin with a transition to a vegan diet--for the animals, human beings, and the Earth.
Related Articles:
Comments
