Originally Posted by Exon Auxus
There is no "scientifically". Humans are animals. You are using the term "animal" to describe a brute, an organism without a well-developed brain or the skills to create the kind of civilization that we as a people have today. That's wrong, because humans exist as a species, live and die just as others. By that, and many other criteria, we are animals and that just cannot be argued.
And even beyond that what you're saying is still invalid. Humans don't share the same physical characteristics as other animals, because not all animals have hearts, brains, and lungs. And last I checked, humans don't have flagella or tough outer shells. Humans are very different from other animals, true. But by that you almost seem to classify organisms into two categories: humans, and everything else. Which, to an extent, is arguable by saying that dogs or apes don't like civilized or cultured lives. But by that same notion, how can you concretely define civilized? You can't, because its a relative term defined only by the conceptions and viewpoints of various factions. What I'm getting at is that yes, dogs, apes, and whatever other animal you want to name do have their own "civilizations" and cultures, but they don't live by what we as a society label as civilized - which is fine.
I can't believe I'm debating the logic that rests in the fact that humans are animals. This is a simple fact that can be found in the opening chapters of even the most remedial Biology textbooks...
This is the most foolish and ignorant thing I've ever heard. Let me ask you - if someone ripped their clothes off, left all their material possessions behind, and went to live in the wilderness eating berries and small animals, then they wouldn't be a human anymore? Would not their genetic makeup still match ours? Sure we'd call them a lunatic, but they will always remain a human until they, hypothetically, stumble into some strange breeding arrangement that changes their genetic makeup enough to classify them as a different species.
Yes, I think technology is a significant and influential aspect of human culture. However I fail to understand that it can be defined as such a keystone factor that, when removed, humanity suddenly becomes labeled as a new creature. Bring your theory to any knowledgeable college professor and it will likely be stigmatized as completely absurd and wholly wrong, with not a page of credible scientific or logical backing to support it.
Note one, just so you know how to actually base an argument, never insult the person you are arguing with. It just puts us both on the defensive. Why must you say that I am ignorant just because I have presented another idea that is different?
You completely contradict yourself when you say that humans are animals is not a scientific fact, and then you follow up in another paragraph saying it is a Biology term. Scientifically, humans are animals categorized as a mammal. Morally however, we look at ourselves as ABOVE animals because we have managed to develop to a more "civilized" state.
Anyway, if you ripped the ability for a human to adapt and develop technology, they would not be human. They would be like a monkey, a somewhat intelligent creature, but somehow incapable of building something as of yet. You misunderstand me, I am saying that if you strip a human of his clothes and he decides to go live with the animals, he will eventually develop tools and a shelter.
Put a human in the jungle, he will take a branch and carve it into a spear. Kill the fish, build a lento. That is all done using the will to adapt, which is part of human nature.
You look at what I said to critically. When I say a person is stripped of the will to adapt and develop technology, they will eventually cease to exist. No longer human, as in morally dead. No way to progress in the tech tree of life, so they will simply stay as an animal, a stupid animal in the wild.
I think you're leading yourself to a dead end. What you're saying is, before cities and urbanized society, there was no civilization. That's incorrect - that's our modern, yet general definition . The definition of civilization and what is civilized changes as people and technology grow. There is no set answer. Pre-Columbian Era humans did not claim that they were uncivilized if they didn't live in cities or urban areas. Let me use this example. Before the English settlers first landed in America, Native Americans had thought themselves civilized, and they continued to argue this notion in American courts even in the mid-19th century. I highly doubt that they discredited themselves as civilized simply because they didn't live in an urban society. Even so, there exist journals from the early settlement period that describe Europeans going insane after being exposed to Native American life, claiming it was far more civilized and wholesome than that which they had previously lived.
There is a preset answer to what a civilization is. There must be a form of writing, a form of government, and some form/concept of time (calendar). Those three major traits are what historically and scientifically makes up a civilization. And while Lusankya is partially correct, there is room for improvement in that answer.