The "Human" Spectrum: Animal v Person

I have been away from my home for a few nights. My lodging had no animals. At home I live with two cats and two dogs, and a man who works outside of the home (and some fish and plants).

When I am away from my home, I think about my animals. I wonder how they are, but I am relieved of the responsibilities related to animal-companionship (not terribly unlike husbandry, but absolutely the opposite end game).

So. I was just thinking, now that I'm home and settled in and have been greeted back into the den with a combination of "I was pissed off" and "Hey! Glad you're back! Could you open this window, please?"

As I got caught up, I thought about people who have no animals in their lives --- not even a fish or a snake, let alone dogs, cats, horses, monkeys, ferrets and hedgehogs, sugarbabies, skunks, raccoons, foxes, bobcats, wolf/dogs, coyotes, rats, or any other species capable of having a real "relationship."

I, for my part, would rather spend my working day with animals than with other people.

Many people are revolted by the thought of having an animal, especially a dog or a cat


Anyway. So, all of that leads to my suggestion: That there is a spectrum of "human to animal " traits in individuals. Just like there appear to be gender variations, and body types, and eye/hair/skin color....is there a spectrum of to what degree any individual is in terms of animal-friendly to animal-haters, and of course infinite points in between.

It's an interesting aspect of the human condition v the natural world. Just how much "human" are we as compared to "animal"? Am I more toward the "animal" side of the human spectrum? And does a person who is exceptionally repulsed by animals of all kinds (or utterly indifferent to them, not even considering them at all) ride on the opposite end, more "human"?


And which is better?

Just random windy-day thoughts. Open thread for thinkers...

In other words: is there a correlation between the degree to which one has an affinity for animals and their level of evolutionary advancement?

Are animal lovers like me more "animal" than "human" on the most detailed scale?

Maybe I am the dunce of the universe! Ah well. Like the women crossing the prairies in covered wagons, just burying the fifth child she has lost, says, as she brushes the dirt from her hands, "All right, look, Jack, that's it!! I've had it with this. I'm staying right here. I'm not going one step further, and this is where we are stopping!"

And that's how the desolate, bleak villages in Nebraska and Western Kansas and Iowa were born. Ugh.

Fertile, and absolutely a resource that rivals any in the world. But it requires HUMANS to cultivate it. Still, I would never have agreed to (let alone demand STAY THERE). I think it was a desperate or insane party who chose to go there and live. No. Way. Nope. I'm going to those mountains, or I'm going to die trying.

What would you all have done -- would you have stopped in the heartland? If so, WHY?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

heghvvvck....lol! great work....op!
i love this soooomuch....
dunce lol!

a reply to: peppycat



I'ma see how many ways I can phrase the question, for kicks...and to see who chimes in.....

Are people who love animals, especially those who PREFER animals (like me) lower on the scale of evolution than the people who are repulsed by animals? And what about those who simply don't give a crap, who think of all animals as objects, and themselves as "above" the animals and plants. Like, you know, "God gave them dominion" and so they are utterly insensitive to the abuse or suffering of any animals at all.

It never occurs to them that the creature has a brain or awareness.

Then there are folks like me, who tend to anthropomorphize ALL animals, and feel compassion for them. Isn't that so weird? I think I'm the less evolved.

No way of knowing, of course. I would suggest that the opposite may be truer however. The more evolved are more likely to love animals as having pets is a strictly human behavior (at least on this planet). The dislike for pets/animals may be more animalistic as it may relate to the perceived threat of other species either directly from predation, or indirectly through the using of scarce resources or the carrying of disease.

P.S., I have a dog, a Wheaton Terrier, she's my favorite kid and I have three human ones.

I tend to think the less evolved are the ones with no interest in animals. Most animals are disinterested in other animals and go about their lives doing their own thing. The ones that have reached the level of enlightenment in which they understand that all creatures have thoughts and feelings are the next level of evolution. We are getting to a point where we understand nature and our impact on it at a broad scale and instead of using our intelligence to further the human race we do so for all other species. For example look at veterinary medicine, at one point it was a bullet in the head for sick animals, now there is even cancer treatment.

Just my thoughts...

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Thanks for chiming in, Toby! It's a real sort of brain-teaser.....

since we are without question animals. And we are a unique animal (humans vs _____).

So, then, if those with more affinity for animals are more evolved, what happened to the progress for those who are still in the 'animals are objects' or 'animals creep me out' range?

How would one create a visual chart for the spectrum? If one could give a "score"?

a reply to: TexasSeabee

Most animals are disinterested in other animals and go about their lives doing their own thing. The ones that have reached the level of enlightenment in which they understand that all creatures have thoughts and feelings are the next level of evolution.

Yeah, I see that, too!!!

Most species of animals do sort of ignore other species, with occasional exceptions, like when Koko adopted the kitten, and then the kitten died, and she cried.

Like when dogs allow cats to snuggle next to them....
or when a draft horse hangs out with a chicken who rides her....

so, when a 'human' hangs out with other animals (and likes that better than just other people...)....

interesting stuff.

I don't know. I often get the sense that "animal people" are often very sensual and appreciate emotions.

The people I come across who don't like animals (rare) are often ones with a sort of fear of their physical and emotional appetites and drives.

originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't know. I often get the sense that "animal people" are often very sensual and appreciate emotions.

The people I come across who don't like animals (rare) are often ones with a sort of fear of their physical and emotional appetites and drives.

Quite.

I see exactly what you mean. The "sensitivity" part.

And, we "animal people," being more tuned in to our companion animals, are also able to intuit things about our companion humans, perhaps to a greater degree than those who see no "he" there in a dog's eyes are able to do.

We pick up the emotions of not just our companion animals, but also those (no matter how energetically "hidden") of our human companions.

I think that really bothers some people.....

As an animal rescuer, I have seen all types of humans and their pets from ridiculous treatment as humans to extreme abuse.

Just opinion wise, I would have to say the humans who abuse animals seem less educated, poor economically (tho not always) and without passion for humans or animals.

Those whom I work with tirelessly to save, rescue and support all other types of animals for dogs, cats, to wild animals appear more thoughtful, empathetic and caring-but does that mean they are closer to the animal scale? No way of knowing.

Both animals and humans appear to share many traits that to try to place them on a spectrum-good or bad-who knows where to place them as evolved?

originally posted by: Justso
As an animal rescuer, I have seen all types of humans and their pets from ridiculous treatment as humans to extreme abuse.

Just opinion wise, I would have to say the humans who abuse animals seem less educated, poor economically (tho not always) and without passion for humans or animals.

Those whom I work with tirelessly to save, rescue and support all other types of animals for dogs, cats, to wild animals appear more thoughtful, empathetic and caring-but does that mean they are closer to the animal scale? No way of knowing.

Both animals and humans appear to share many traits that to try to place them on a spectrum-good or bad-who knows where to place them as evolved?

Right! Evolutionary point. Not a moral question. Not "good" nor "bad."

For example, today on my way home, I heard a nerd-radio piece on recycling. It was a local talk-radio show, and the woman interviewed several recycling types about how far along our city is (or how far behind) in addressing pollution and waste. It was really interesting.

In our city/metro area, 60% recycle now, but 40% don't. Our household does. The neighbors across the street? One of three does.

I thought about starting just an "our block" recycling program, talking to all my neighbors, AND the church pastor next door. Couldn't we get bins put in the church lot? I'd be happy to go round picking up people's aluminum, paper, glass, etc.
For free. I would do it as a community volunteer thing, and it would be for the good of the planet.

Recycling projects actually save BILLIONS of dollars a year for our economy, even after we pay for the staff to pick up, sort, bundle, and manage the collected stuff.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't know. I often get the sense that "animal people" are often very sensual and appreciate emotions.

The people I come across who don't like animals (rare) are often ones with a sort of fear of their physical and emotional appetites and drives.

Quite.

I see exactly what you mean. The "sensitivity" part.

And, we "animal people," being more tuned in to our companion animals, are also able to intuit things about our companion humans, perhaps to a greater degree than those who see no "he" there in a dog's eyes are able to do.

We pick up the emotions of not just our companion animals, but also those (no matter how energetically "hidden") of our human companions.

I think that really bothers some people.....

I think I agree... though I get uncomfortable with the idea that us "animal types" are somehow more evolved or superior to those who are not. I sometimes think my analytical mind is not very sharp, precisely because of the flood of sensual info I have going sometimes? I can sort of have problems concentrating on tasks when distracted by all the body language sorts of messages going on around me.

I'm feeling a bit guilty today because I was told a woman was going to be fired because of her terrible relational skills, and I am going to be given her job. She was much more experienced than me, and more capable. But she is hostile and violent with every single person around her life. I get along with everyone and am cheerful.

I just kinda feel like that might not be a good reason to give me her job. I'm wondering how many mistakes I will make at first, and how many times I'll hear in the hallway , "Don't get me wrong, I like her, she's super nice, but man, she is an idiot!"


I think I like being around animals because they don't care how smart I am.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Hey gurl! Nice thread ya got here!

Animals are just other people to me (and my hubby). Our 'pets' are our 'love children' because we didn't have kids together. (Well the ferrets were, the cat was a rescue we took in and she's a jerk at times.)

Every veterinarian I've ever met has been kinder and more compassionate than every human doctor I've ever met.
I think "animal people" are different.

To me it probably comes down to empathy. Those of us who feel it (to the maximum) can be saddened to see a dead bug or fish...others feel nothing at all. I don't know how much it's linked to evolution or intelligence...but it's something I've often wondered myself.
S&F
jacy

Though I get uncomfortable with the idea that us "animal types" are somehow more evolved or superior to those who are not.

Keep in mind, I said I think that the NON-ANIMAL types might be more evolved.

And also I am fine with being less evolved if that is the case.
I initially suggested that I am closer to the 'animal' end of the spectrum, while people who don't want to mess with them are further along, and on the 'human' end of the evolutionary spectrum.

They are ahead of me.
And that's okay with me.

a reply to: jacygirl

To me too! I was going to change the title once more, to: animal v person.

Because I, too, think of animals as people.

MANY people do not.

[[hug]]

a reply to: Bluesma

I think I like being around animals because they don't care how smart I am.

And they don't care how you're dressed, or what kind of car you drive, either! They're just happy to be with you.

They make an effort to "get" you. I miss my horses so much. And all of the companions I've had to bury over the years.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Are people who love animals, especially those who PREFER animals (like me) lower on the scale of evolution than the people who are repulsed by animals?

I think it's the other way around, animal lovers like us are closer to nature and in my opinion higher on that scale.

Good thread.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Are people who love animals, especially those who PREFER animals (like me) lower on the scale of evolution than the people who are repulsed by animals?

I think it's the other way around, animal lovers like us are closer to nature and in my opinion higher on that scale.

Good thread.

I've actually often wondered if "evolved" really means living MORE in harmony with Nature...?
(in which case, humans are failing miserably)

Some people are really in touch with animals, can greet and touch them in the wild...and are accepted by creatures that will hiss/bark/snarl at another human. We've got something, I'm just not quite sure what "it" is, lol.
jacy

a reply to: thesaneone

Just to say. I gave you a star. Very unexpected, and I almost didn't even read it. But jacy posted, and then I saw your quote. Cool.