Re: animals

"island" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

Humans take care of animals.  Animals don't take care of humans.
That is one reason humans are more important.