More Human Than Human Pt. 1 (Humans and Animals)

What is it that makes people "human"?

When asked, sadly, many humans are hard pressed to give a definitive answer. To answer that question would also be to ask the following questions. What makes an animal an animal...and what makes a machine a machine.

Many people have cited religious quests or have reached emotional conclusion when, from the looks of things, cannot be used to truly tell what is and what is not human.Religion for example. Some believe religion is some sort of mass hysteria, a mental illness of sorts which we, as humans, have cooked up to make us feel better or to provide moral boundaries for us to live by. Arguably, a large majority of the world does believe in religion in one incantation or another whether it be Christianity, Muslim, Hindu or whichever other religion you can think of. Is it possible that that many people have voluntarily opened themselves up to mental illness? Many religious leaders and believers would take my words as a slight towards organized religion, however I think they, even with all their followers and beliefs must agree that even the mentally ill have shown signs of delusion when it come to insanity. Visions of Jesus Christ and even people who believe they have spoken to God directly all litter the landscape of the world. The thought that one all mighty entity rules over the entire universe and for some reason of all the trillions of possible planets out there chose Earth as his religious sanctuary seems incredibly far fetched. To this day, no one has been able to offer a viable scientific explanation to that question. If there is a human element to this point of view, it is that we are all flawed and can and will become ill either physically, mentally, or both.

The human emotional experience has been defined, by some, as the ability to attach an emotional response to a given action. For example, a person dies therefore you may cry or in some severe cases, feel physical pain. Perhaps a certain event that has been looked forward to arrives, therefore eliciting a joyful response or a sense of excitement. Both are considered to be a human response. However, it is not unheard of to see this emotion from an animal. Example, a dog owner returns home from work, the dog in turn becomes excited since his master has returned to him. Although some define that as a human emotional response, the dog clearly shares excitement with his human counterpart. Does this example make us less human or more animal? Does it make the dog less animal and more human? Comparatively, humans have in many cases exhibited many physical and emotional reponses that can be seen as animal. Would a man living in the forest be called an animal for killing a deer and eating it to survive? In most cases no because he would in all likelihood be doing it only out of necessity. The same can be said of a coyote or wild dog or any other predatory animal.

The only reason they kill, in most cases, is to survive. Some may argue that there have in fact been times where a human was killed by a wild animal for means other than that noted for a human killing an animal. Based on scientific studies of animal and human behavior, it is not too far fetched to believe that a human wandering into the territory of a pack of wolves may be targeted and killed. This example can be be compared to that of a wild animal, for example a bobcat, getting into a house with people in it and the homeowner shooting and killing the animal. Why, in both cases, did something or someone die? Territory. The bobcat was seen as a threat although it may have had no intention of attacking a human, but since the cat was unexpectedly present, the human shot and killed it. Same can be said of the wolves attacking and killing a human walking through their territory. The human, by their judgment, had no right to be there and was viewed as a threat, even though the human most likely was simply passing through. Based on these arguments, the line between humans and animals begins to fade as their behavior seems very similar to that of a human.

The supposed lack of human emotion as it pertains to the murder of another human being is, by some, viewed as animalistic. The likeness, however convenient, seems terribly misused as human behavior cannot always be seen as righteous. The killing of another for materialistic things such as money and possessions is all too human. A terrific example may be seen as war between countries and groups of people. War, by all accounts, generally begins when one group of people, for some reason decide to either cause harm to another group or take what that group feels is rightfully theirs. The disagreement escalates and a conflict is born as the two factions fight for what they feel is right. The same can be said of animals, albeit on a smaller scale. One pack of wolves may try to expand their territory into that of another packs. Fighting begins and lives are lost as the two groups of animals compete for dominance of the land. Again, another issue which is referred to as animal can now be seen as more human than anything else. One fact that offers circumstance is the reason behind the war. Wolves, by all accounts, will only do such things as a means to survive. The food in a certain location becomes scarce, therefore the pack moves to where the food is and in some cases this new location overruns that of an already existing pack. Given the territoriality of both packs, war may be inevitable.

It can be argued that humans do the same thing; taking over a certain area of land or resource as a means of survival. While that argument may sometimes hold water, in the last 200 years there are several examples of people not taking over or attacking other countries out of necessity, but simply because they choose to. Take Nazi Germany for example. History has shown that Germany did not have to oppress the Jewish community, yet they killed millions of them; not to take over a country or a resource, but simply because they chose to. Nazi sympathizers say that the Jews were the reason for Germany's defeat in World War I. Others say that religion came into play and the largely Christian country did not wish to have Jews rule their land and economy. Nowhere in history can the same be said for animals. Killing simply to kill rarely, if ever, happens in nature. Neither does killing over a religious belief.

(TBC)