i thought it was welsh...

Yes its a welsh thing.



Why not?



Well, simple. Take the cabbage. Without it, rabbits would struggle, thus the cabbage is a contributor to life on earth. Then the rabbit, without it, eagles and hawks would struggle, thus again, another contributor.

Take us. All we do is kill shit beyond proportion (Native Americans aside), and THATS something that separates us humans.

A dog doesn't know it's a dog because it's not evolved enough so that it understands the concept of self awareness, simple as that.

And also, saying that we contribute the least is horseshit, how many creatures and different types of plant do we conserve and stop from going extint. It maybe that humans caused them to be near extinction in the first place, eg. some types of gorilla or the panda for example. but there will be some that we conserved who's near extinction was not directly linked to us but to global changes etc.
Think about it, if horses *ruled* the earth and there were similar numbers of horses as there are humans, do you honestly think they would conserve even one of the species we do...no, they would just go about their mindless task of reproducing until the world could sustain no more horses due to food or fresh water or whatever, they wouldn't think about how they could change the environment to ensure their own surivial let alone any one else's.
Therefore we contribute more to the earth than any one other species be it plant or animal.

You can't just think so literally about food chain's, stop being so ignorant

Can you back that up with scientific reasoning?



Spectacularly times less than we eradicate.




Dodo, Buffalo, Tiger, Quagga, Rhino, Condor, Albatross, Wolf, Elephant, Otter, Whale....... the list goes on mate.



Without a doubt.



Firtly, they would never populate to our number, secondly, due to their reliance of the food chain, the chances of wiping anything in their food chain out is incredibly low.



I am speaking of us being in external context to the food chain. Like Ox's view.

Derf, they teach this stuff in a freshman level college philosophy course. A dog does not know its "a dog". All it knows is its hungry, it needs to take a shit, etc

Do you think a dog would understand the concept, "I think therefore I am"
I dont think so, maybe "I poop on the carpet therefore Im going to the doghouse"

Take a human baby.

At the first years of life a baby is the same as a dog. I want a bottle, I need to poop, Im tired, Im sleepy. And the adults train the baby just like they do a dog. But there is a point we the baby surpases the dog's intelligence where it has the ability to understand the statement "I think therefore I am" and it can use reason and logic.

Excuse my ignorance but the phrase "I think therefore I am" means what exactly? That a being can wonder about things therefore what?

sigh. Well I cant remeber the full answer I dont have my book with me and Im not a philosphy teacher but it goes something along the lines of....
I think therefore I am is what seperates our actions for animal instincts. The process of thinking about it and not just doing it out of instincts.

Descartes if i'm not mistaken, "Je pense donc je suis"? Standard first year philosophy material yeah. One of the few courses i passed in my first year

And since we have no natural enemies that pose a threat we're outside the foodchain yes. But in your foodchain it's just logic that the higher you are, the lesser you 'contribute' in your definition, and you kill more. That's why it's a piramide, not a square or something.

And like 11b says: animals have instinct.

This is such a wishy-washy subject. I can not interpret what you mean by those words you used there.

Well take a class. This isnt college. Im going off what I remeber. I remebering haveing this same argument in class. And having the same people argue your same point, and the same teacher owning them based of that statement.
An instinct action doesnt take tought. Instinct is like a reflex, you do it without thinking. People have instincts to but our thinking minds can overcome our instincts.

While i agree to a certain extent (chekc previous posts), i wanna point out that Descartes and his dialogueism are highly questionable. Not to mention false, to a great extent. His philosophy is more of a road leading towards modern thinking than valuable in itself. In that regard "je pense donc je suis" is a bit of a boutade. I.e. of questionable applicability.

I don't believe Descartes' philosophy can be applied on this subject. I believe he said it because he wanted to know whether he really existed, instead of wanting to know wether he was a mammal or not.

hehe...stop paraphrasing my post!!



*patents his post*

I didnt understand the original Patent.

Thanks Arathorn.

Goddamit, am i really that incomprehensible? It must be you! It must be ALL of you!! Because i'm perfect!!