Re: animals

Mark Earnest wrote:
> 
> "andy-k" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "island" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > andy-k wrote:
> > > > "Mark Earnest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > "andy-k" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > "Kris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > animals r just animals
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Define "animal"
> > > > >
> > > > > lower life form
> > > >
> > > > What would constitute an example of a *higher* life form?
> > >
> > > A human
> >
> > What is it about the definition of "animal" that excludes humans?
> 
> An animal being a lower life form, not worth as much as humans.

"Worth" would have to be determined by the value of a link in chain that
gets weaker as it approaches the bottom.

An animal's big picture contribution to nature's overall physical
process would determine its "level" in nature with respect to other
animals, but humans have a strong sense, which is supported by some
evidence, that breaking the chain in the wrong spot might come back to
haunt us, BIGTIME, so what's that worth?

> > What is it about the definition of "animal" that excludes humans?

Animals utilize less degrees of entropic freedom than humans.  They are
not "excluded", they are less efficient, therefore, less preferred by
nature.