4 ms·

> I think I can see what you're getting at: every animal is arguably exceptional in its own way, and picking out the ways in which humans are exceptional as bei

> I think I can see what you're getting at: every animal is arguably exceptional in its own way, and picking out the ways in which humans are exceptional as being more significant than others is stacking the deck in favour of finding humans to be uniquely (or exceptionally) exceptional in an anthropocentric way. This is 100% my point. When people talk about "human exceptionalism," they're referring to this type of "exceptional." > we might find that many of the traits that make this possible are shared in some ways with other animals, but there's just obviously the fact that no other animals come close to being able to replicate it. This is true, however I posit this makes us no more exceptional than other animals. Evolution pushed our ancestors down a certain track and this was the result but that also means there's no reason another species can't emerge to do the same thing. The reason I think this is important is because "human exceptionalism" carries a baggage of divine right (the Bible called it dominion over beasts) that leads us down the wrong path with respect to our understanding of the world and how we treat it. When we engage with other animals on their own terms, we learn so much more about them than if we simply look down on them.

Jensson 1y ago
> The reason I think this is important is because "human exceptionalism" carries a baggage of divine right That is on you, that doesn't mean humans aren't exceptional. The fact that we are even discussing our role in nature and how we shouldn't abuse it makes us that exceptional. If humans weren't that exceptional we would just go and destroy nature everywhere it benefits us with no thoughts about the future or how this could ever hurt us, just like animals does when they have the power to.
- scott_w 1y ago
  Everything you said just made my point for me.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    In what way does what I say have anything to do with divine rights? Rather I'd call your stance "divine obligations", which is also a stance that humans are exceptional. You don't hold that for any other species than humans.
    - scott_w 1y ago
      > If humans weren't that exceptional we would just go and destroy nature everywhere it benefits us with no thoughts about the future or how this could ever hurt us Let’s start here: humans are literally in the process of doing this via carbon emissions. There seems no way of stopping it as we’re all slaves to economic incentives. If you take a step away from the details of how we do this, you’ll see plenty of animals destroy their local ecology through things like over grazing, and need predators to bring them back under control. Again, the details and scale are different but the base behavioural trait is there: optimising local maxima and causing long term damage. So no, humans don’t follow a divine obligation: we actually do the same thing every animal does and tries to maximise our short term goals to the detriment of everything else. We’re not exceptional in this regard.
griffzhowl 1y ago
> When people talk about "human exceptionalism," they're referring to this type of "exceptional." Yeah, ok. I think it should be clear by now that people use the word "exceptional" in different ways, and it's not really clear just from the use of the word which of these ways it is. For me, "exceptional" just means "different", but you seem to be suggesting that people use it in the sense of "better", or something like that. Maybe that's true in some cases, but I would also say that humans are exceptionally destructive, and even in some ways exceptionally evil, in the sense that some people seem to take pleasure in causing harm, which is a feature that isn't shared with many other animals - or at least it's difficult to make the case that this is shared with many other animals. So "exceptional" doesn't mean "better" to me. Let's try to be objective about things: dolphins are exceptional in their sonar abilities, curiosity, complexity of social organisation for a marine animal, range of sonic vibrations they emit, and so on. We can similarly evaluate the complexity of human behaviours according to objective criteria: our range of vocalizations is objectively more complex than any other species (we could get into the details of this if you like: I think the informational entropy of average human behavioural outputs can easily be shown to be higher than the highest way you have of evaluating non-human vacalisations or behavioural outputs), the comeplxity of human tool use can also be objectively quantified: New Caledonian crows, dolphins, or chimpanzees have technological assemblages which consists of maximally two or three moving parts (let me know if you know of exceptions), while human ones often consist of thousands. We're really comparing one large rock, a nut, and a hammer rock, against a nuclear reactor. It just should be abundantly clear that there's an exception here. About your ethical point that "exceptionalism" translates into "divine right", I draw the opposite conclusion. Human exceptionalism doesn't mean that we can just do whatever we want, it means that with our increased abilities and awareness comes increased responsibility: we can become aware of the harms we cause to other life and other humans exactly because we're more capable and more preceptive
- scott_w 1y ago
  > For me, "exceptional" just means "different", but you seem to be suggesting that people use it in the sense of "better", or something like that. I’ve already explained why this is the only real definition you can take: because otherwise “exceptionalism” doesn’t create a new meaning, it’s just a synonym for “different,” which means “human exceptionalism” would mean literally nothing. I know I’m banging on about this definition but I think it’s a really important thing to keep in mind. To be clear, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to point out humans are better at doing things than animals. That’s an objective fact at this point in time. My point is that this doesn’t make us “different” to other animals any more than any animal is different to another animal! This piece of human exceptionalism is what I object to. If you want a simpler way of putting it, we can take Douglas Adams’s quote: Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Jensson 1y ago

> The reason I think this is important is because "human exceptionalism" carries a baggage of divine right That is on you, that doesn't mean humans aren't exceptional. The fact that we are even discussing our role in nature and how we shouldn't abuse it makes us that exceptional. If humans weren't that exceptional we would just go and destroy nature everywhere it benefits us with no thoughts about the future or how this could ever hurt us, just like animals does when they have the power to.

scott_w 1y ago
Everything you said just made my point for me.
- Jensson 1y ago
  In what way does what I say have anything to do with divine rights? Rather I'd call your stance "divine obligations", which is also a stance that humans are exceptional. You don't hold that for any other species than humans.
  - scott_w 1y ago
    > If humans weren't that exceptional we would just go and destroy nature everywhere it benefits us with no thoughts about the future or how this could ever hurt us Let’s start here: humans are literally in the process of doing this via carbon emissions. There seems no way of stopping it as we’re all slaves to economic incentives. If you take a step away from the details of how we do this, you’ll see plenty of animals destroy their local ecology through things like over grazing, and need predators to bring them back under control. Again, the details and scale are different but the base behavioural trait is there: optimising local maxima and causing long term damage. So no, humans don’t follow a divine obligation: we actually do the same thing every animal does and tries to maximise our short term goals to the detriment of everything else. We’re not exceptional in this regard.

griffzhowl 1y ago

> When people talk about "human exceptionalism," they're referring to this type of "exceptional." Yeah, ok. I think it should be clear by now that people use the word "exceptional" in different ways, and it's not really clear just from the use of the word which of these ways it is. For me, "exceptional" just means "different", but you seem to be suggesting that people use it in the sense of "better", or something like that. Maybe that's true in some cases, but I would also say that humans are exceptionally destructive, and even in some ways exceptionally evil, in the sense that some people seem to take pleasure in causing harm, which is a feature that isn't shared with many other animals - or at least it's difficult to make the case that this is shared with many other animals. So "exceptional" doesn't mean "better" to me. Let's try to be objective about things: dolphins are exceptional in their sonar abilities, curiosity, complexity of social organisation for a marine animal, range of sonic vibrations they emit, and so on. We can similarly evaluate the complexity of human behaviours according to objective criteria: our range of vocalizations is objectively more complex than any other species (we could get into the details of this if you like: I think the informational entropy of average human behavioural outputs can easily be shown to be higher than the highest way you have of evaluating non-human vacalisations or behavioural outputs), the comeplxity of human tool use can also be objectively quantified: New Caledonian crows, dolphins, or chimpanzees have technological assemblages which consists of maximally two or three moving parts (let me know if you know of exceptions), while human ones often consist of thousands. We're really comparing one large rock, a nut, and a hammer rock, against a nuclear reactor. It just should be abundantly clear that there's an exception here. About your ethical point that "exceptionalism" translates into "divine right", I draw the opposite conclusion. Human exceptionalism doesn't mean that we can just do whatever we want, it means that with our increased abilities and awareness comes increased responsibility: we can become aware of the harms we cause to other life and other humans exactly because we're more capable and more preceptive

scott_w 1y ago
> For me, "exceptional" just means "different", but you seem to be suggesting that people use it in the sense of "better", or something like that. I’ve already explained why this is the only real definition you can take: because otherwise “exceptionalism” doesn’t create a new meaning, it’s just a synonym for “different,” which means “human exceptionalism” would mean literally nothing. I know I’m banging on about this definition but I think it’s a really important thing to keep in mind. To be clear, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to point out humans are better at doing things than animals. That’s an objective fact at this point in time. My point is that this doesn’t make us “different” to other animals any more than any animal is different to another animal! This piece of human exceptionalism is what I object to. If you want a simpler way of putting it, we can take Douglas Adams’s quote: Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.