A few thoughts : Are humans/human lives ALWAYS more valuable than animals?

Here's a statement i saw here on P&R that bugged me and forced me to think on the issue. The apparent meaning of the above statement is that "A person values humans before/above animals" and "Human lives above those of animals". Fair enough, but could there be exceptions? Is it a simple equation of Human life > Animal life ?

Now, let's assume that the human in question is

1] A serial killer
2] A dictator who oppressed and killed many
3] A terrorist with no regard for life of innocents
4] A person who wishes to do a great evil to another person [Cheating, murdering for money or whatever]
and so on .....

Now, would you value [Both "value" and "life value"], in those above cases, a human above say, a random wolf or polar bear or cat or dog ?

Would you value that human in the above cases over your pet dog?

Hopefully you see that Human life [always] > Animal life isn't such a simple equation. It's all life, and i feel it funny that people who are "pro-life" could ignore animal lives. Of course everything is relative - To me a lion's life is more important than 5 insect lives. Anyway in the end IMHO, if a man wants his life to be valuable to all people, he must respect other lives [Human, animal or whatever].

Now, do animals value human lives above their own? Maybe not. But there are cases and happenings where animals have saved human lives.
Example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7792445/

So it brings up an interesting point. Do animals value human lives at all?. So at least there's where we humans should begin. We should value animal lives, maybe not above that of ourselves or fellow good human beings, but we should value them nonetheless and not completely ignore them.

 

It really depends on the situation. I'll value my pet more than someone who I really don't know.

 

humans can be more kindness than angels, but can be more evil than satan him self.

 

I'd value my cattle more than cattle rustlers.

 

Dogs have that unconditional love thing going on, and the smallest things will make them so happy. There are very few humans in this world that I value as much as my dog.

 

The dogs that we have in our homes, the domesticated ones, Only like us because we have bred them to be retarded. We have bred them over thousands of years to stay young mentally and to not mature. That doesn't take away anything from owning a dog, but it's important to acknowledge that dogs like being around us and don't bite our faces off because we have bred them to be like that, Not necessarily because they want to.

There are some times when having an animal around is more useful that having a person around, But if had to make a arbitrary choice i doubt i would ever chose to save an animal over a human.

 

I'd give more respect and value the life of a pig or dog or donkey or crow or mule than respect a terrorist or his life.

 

99% of us would do the same. The question is would you do the same even if the man is completely unworthy of being saved [Like the examples i gave] just because you generally value humans above animals.

 

That is a great statement.

I think human life and lively hood comes before the protection of animals. That being said what the railroad builders did to the buffalo or the fur traders do to seals is wrong. Drilling in Anwar could have a negative impact but if done properly and with safe guards there will be minimal impact on the environment. No one has stated that they are for poaching Polar bears. The "evil dictator", serial killer or murderer are not the ones be hurt finically by the polar bears being put on the list.

You made 4 great points

I think that the animals displace

 

No, definitely not always. My 5 year old nephew was killed by a police officer who made a very stupid mistake (something that most of us would have went to prison for). He did not see any jail time. Then, look at Michael Vick. Your question is answered.

 

You raise cattle?

 

I'm not sure about this, Stox, but it would be an interesting, bona fide study. If we look at it from an energy standpoint, yes, much like captive falcons, it's easier to chow a handed down meal than to hunt it down.

I can also tell you straight out, and it blows our minds - but whenever one of the humans in our household clan - myself, my wife, my child - are truly sad about something (a lot of personal grief over the last year, in a word), one of our dogs immediately comes to us, nuzzles, and places his paw on us. Very hard to dismiss the notion of "care."

My unstudied instinct on this is that we're just seen as being these really freaky dogs, with some serious duende, and so are revered as uber-dogs.

To the subject, well, I think we got it wrong at Eden, anthropologically speaking, when we created all kinds of dualistic notions - ourselves/deity, man/nature, and so forth. Yes, I value human life more than animal life, but I see a flaw in the notion, and know I've been a helluva lot happier when I've dropped it, in practice.

 

I see it in a documentary NP, Though in the doc they used foxes to demonstrate it. The idea is that dogs (and foxes) would spend time happily around humans while they are juvenile but when they matured they would all of a sudden turn if they decided they would like to take your position of leader. So what they done was breed out of them the ability to mentally mature into adulthood by only breeding dogs which had a lengthy juvenile stage, Eventually we got dogs that remained juvenile all their life.

They do still retain their pack mentality, And i'm sure part of that is caring, At some level, For other pack members, But it means they are far less likely to think about challenging you for the position of "top dog", As it were.

Even things like playing with a ball or fetching a stick, These are very much juvenile activities. Also behavioral traits that are found in wolf pups only, like barking and the wagging of the tail, Are present during the whole life of a domesticated dog while adult wolf traits, like the regurgitation of food, has almost entirely disappeared.

edit: i dont know if this is the documentary i see, but if it isn;t it's very much similar.
http://www.abc.net.au/animals/program1/factsheet5.htm

 

Easy to answer, I'd do the same thing if someone hurt my dog as I'd do if you hurt my son..

I know for a fact he'd do the same for me.

---
BTW I don't see how breeding out aggression is the same as keeping a dog mentally juvenile. Humans can be adult and extremely intelligent but not be 'aggressive' and vice versa, humans can and do play games when they are adults.

Dogs also still do challenge their masters, especially big dogs. A bullmastiff for example is extremely loyal, but stubborn and needs to know who is the alpha.

 

Because they didn't breed out aggression as such, They bred in an extended juvenile phase in order to reduce aggression.

Yeah humans can, But human psychology and the behavioral traits of canines are very different things.

Dogs retain more juvenile traits besides the reduced aggression, Like the wagging of the tail and the barking, things never done by adult wolves, and traits possessed by adult wolves, like the regurgitation of partly digested food, is hardly even demonstrated by domesticated dogs. Almost every behavioral trait of domesticated dogs is usually exclusive to wolf pups and adult wolf traits are hardly ever demonstrated by adult domesticated dogs.

That's just a breeds characteristic. If a bull-mastiff wanted to challenge his master his master would wake up one day with his throat torn out. Being a bit stubborn isn't challenging anything, and is actually a big of a childish characteristic in it's self.

 

Bullmastiffs do challenge their master and can 'rip their masters throats out'

Domestic Dogs do come from wolves, not entirely directly though making it truly impossible and illogical to compare the two as you are doing.

----BTW my point to the above is such as the following..

You claim they 'bred in juvenile phases' yet breeders to this day breed for the purpose of either 'aggressiveness' or in most cases 'non aggressive' animals to make good pets.

Sorry but this is a case where I honestly believe you are 100% incorrect.

----After doing some more research on my own, I believe most of the problem I have is how you stated it.

Keeping some juvenile characteristics, well that's simply picking certain animals that would make better pets than others, perhaps those did keep some 'juvenile' characteristics. That however is far from keeping the animal mentally juvenile and or as you stated 'retarded'.

BTW not all dogs bark a lot, a bullmastiff for instance rarely does

 

I had a small herd of Brahman on my plantation but had to get rid of them due to the problems I was having with rustlers. I didn't lose any but did manage to steal 1 pack horse and 2 donkeys. I was able to recover 1 of the donkeys but it took two years of searching. A pack horse is worth $100 and a donkey is worth $50-$80

 

Yeah they can, But they generally don't.

domesticated dogs were bred directly from wolves. Though even if they weren't they are similar enough and closely related enough to make behavioral comparisons accurate.

Does it not strike you as odd that a domesticated adult dog almost entirely expresses behavioral traits found in wolf pups and hardly expresses any behavioral traits expressed by adult wolves? What other explanation could there be for this apparent reversal of traits indicative of mental maturity? why would it all of a sudden switch 180 degrees if it isn't caused by a prolonged state of immaturity?

Animals are bred for a purpose. what's your point?

You just want it to be incorrect because you don't like the sound of it. You think that by admitting that your dog has the brain of a puppy you will be in some emasculated. It's understandable, But it doesn't make you right.

My use of the word "retarded" was in the literal sense - to move or proceed slowly, delay or impede, hold back.

 

Interesting. Through my former life, I have come to know several heirloom ranchers - Highland and Piedmontese, mostly. Where did you do this, may I ask?

 

Through proper breeding.

Ahh so all sub species should have the same characteristics throughout life I guess. The originals did come from a wolf, the ones we currently have today by and large are far, far from wolves on many levels.

Not really as domestic dogs really are not that close to wolves on many levels, size, appearance and much more. I have no problem with the statement juvenile traits, that's fine, humans have juvenile traits at times. But this idea that they are 'retarded' is over the line, the idea that domestic dogs do not care to be with humans is also absurd. Would they want to be our houses without domestication? More than likely not, they however are not longer a wolf now are they?

Point is with your way of thinking by getting rid of aggressive humans by picking only those who are non aggressive the argument could be made that those people are retarded. Humans after all were not always 'domesticated' and were once much more wild than they are today.

Using your logic as well, when a dog does maul a person that is the not retarded dog, the normal dog, the healthy dog.

Not at all, I believe it's incorrect, the way you are stating as listed above. It has nothing to do with wanting my dog not to have the brain of a puppy it has everything to do with common sense. Personally I wish he'd stay a puppy for life, many pet owners do BTW. They love the childish behavior of their dogs.

Calling all dogs 'retarded' simply because they show what in a wolf would be considered some juvenile traits makes you far from right.