Humanity is an animal – we’re biological constructs, after all, a walking, talking conglomerate of cells and bones and proteins and liquids. We’re essentially a molecular machine, whose workings aren’t based on motors or gears, but on molecular shapes and chemicals. At the cellular level, we work on the nano and pico-scale (and that indicates that nano-technology will one day be more powerful than we could dare imagine. If molecular interactions underpin life itself, the possibilities of humanity exploiting those molecules is enormous. Mind-boggling).

But to get back on point – we are animals as you pointed out. However, I think we are the best animal. Here me out – I don’t think that because of religion or spiritualism. I think we’re the best animal because of our ability to understand our own biology, our own evolution and our own place in the universe. We’re the only known species that can fully understand its own history, and the laws of the universe. In essence, we’re the only part of life that can really look back and comprehend life – we’re the universe’s brain as it were.

A forest cannot appreciate itself, only we do. A waterfall does not think itself beautiful. Only we do. We make the mistake of imposing our values on universe – anthropomorphizing it, if you will. We take our values and then try to say that the universe shares those values. It does not. Those values are only known to exist in the human brain.

Without humanity, there is no mathematics. There is no formal logic or science or beauty or art.

A dog or a cow or a rat cannot look at the stars and truly comprehend what they are. Those species cannot yearn for glory or try to improve their lives. Only humans can do that.

Only humans have the concepts of justice or fairness. A bear would rip you to shreds in the wild. Sharks kill dolphins. People make a great deal about saying that “humans are the most evil” – and certainly we are the most destructive, but we are the only species with the capacity for idealism and morality. The other animal species aren’t kinder than humans. They’re just not as technologically/socially advanced, so their viciousness does not come across as easily to us.

My philosophy is one of Humanism. What’s good for our species is what is moral. What is good for humanity is what is moral. Our species must survive, no matter what. Without our species, where is there meaning? Like you. I don’t believe meaning is inherent to the universe. Meaning is created by a sufficiently advanced intelligence, and so far, we are the only known intelligence advanced enough to create meaning. Without us, the universe becomes nothing more than a void – just atoms being atoms and animals doing what their genes program them to do.

I don’t approve of being cruel to animals – they can feel pain after all. I find vegetarianism a noble ideal, and I have nothing against vegetarians. What I do have a problem with is people stating that humanity is not special. We are special.

Can a dog create a symphony? Can a cat comprehend the Central Dogma of Biology? Can a mouse truly know of the trillions of light-years between galaxies and marvel at the sheer size of a galaxy-cluster? Can a snail gaze into a picture of the Hubble Deep Field and understand that each of those pricks of light represents a galaxy, which is comprised of hundreds of millions of stars, and billions upon billions of planets?

Any universe without humanity would not be one worth saving.

I feel the same way about external evaluation of basic emotions and instincts.

And that theatre metaphor is awesome.

In production though, but it has Naomie Harris. Couldn’t find a release date though.

i was saying try reading Alain De Botton’s book Essays in Love. I think you will find it fascinating and he agrees with much of what you say. Love rocks – don’t give up on it!

As long as I’m writing necrocomments… I just imported and finished up the so-far-trilogy. I loathed number two as it’s all about mushy stuff – story and creativity and persychology – and I can’t scrape any Signal out of the noise. Digging philosophy as you do, I honestly can’t tell whether you’d love it or tear it in half.

Number three’s about Darwin’s life and times and seems OK, but a bit unfocused. It’s difficult for a Dawkins goon like me to judge it as the pop-sci’s a bit below my level; no fault of the authors. It might be very nice for those who are interested in evolution but whose only image of Darwin is the patriarchal portrait beard.

grilly

Anyway, back to deadline…