Animal rights and freedom

[Who is like God arbour]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't some gorillas and/or chimps in captivity done drawings/painting during studies of them?

The problem is not that it is disputed that humans are able to do art.

The problem is the question what exactly art is, what proves that animals don't do art and why that is supposed to be relevant.

For example, why are e.g. bird songs or whale songs not considered art although we know that it has also communicative purposes?
Why is e.g. the flying of a bee or a bird not considered art although we know that it has also communicative purposes and is not only a kind of locomotion?

If you think that the ability to art is important, you have to define the term and have to say why what's coming from humans is art and what is coming from animals is not art. And your explanation should be objective. That means that you have to show a qualitative difference and not only a quantitative difference and that your explanation has to be more than a reference to the originator. To say, it's coming from a human, that's why it is art and what is coming from an animal is not art, is circular reasoning.

Furthermore you have to explain why the ability to art is relevant at all. Why does the lack of ability to art means that individuals of a species are not entitled to their own rights? Imagine a logical society without emotions (e.g. as Vulcan is supposed to be). Their individuals are highly intelligent but have no use for arts and don't really understand how one can waste time and resources for something that has no practical purpose (Don't nitpick that example - I know that Vulcan is not really as emotionless as the world in my example would have to be). Assuming that such a society could exist, would their individuals be entitled to their own rights?

And yes, mankind has great artists (from my point of view - an alien may object to that assertion). But there are more individuals who have no artistic abilities. Are they entitled to their own rights although they couldn't sing or draw or rhyme to save their life?

[PunkMaister]

Where is that you want to go with all this? Are you suggesting that Animals and plants should be entitled with the same rights as humans? Are you suggesting that Animals and plants should be given the right to pursue their happiness, give them what? Property? Farmland?

[Who is like God arbour]

That are the still unanswered questions:

• Define what a human is and how a human is different from animals and plants.
• Define what human rights are and why a human is supposed to have such but no animal or plant.
• Define what sentient means and prove that humans are sentient and animals are not.
• Define what rationalistic means and prove that humans can rationalize and animals can not.
• Define what self awareness means and prove that humans are self aware and animals are not.
• Define what poetry is and prove that animals don't do it.
• Define what art is and explain why only humans but no animals can do art and why the ability to do art is supposed to be relevant for the question, if someone is entitled to its own rights.
• Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated.
• Prove that animals don't ask their place in the universe.
• Show that all these abilities are somehow important for the question, if animals should have their own rights and that these are not arbitrary chosen criteria.
• Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.
  
  A chimpanzee has the mental abilities of a 3 - 5 years old child [1, 2, 3].
  
  If a chimpanzee does not has its own rights because he lacks certain mental abilities, does that mean, that a child also does not have its own rights because it also lacks certain mental abilities?
• What is the objective criteria to say, what species is the dominant species of a planet?
• Define what nihilism is and show me where I have said that I think things that are showing that I'm a nihilist (Your explanation can not be subsumed under the definition of nihilism nor does it answer the second and important part of my question).
• Show me where I have said that there is no difference between humans and shrimps.
• Define what abstract thinking is and prove that humans are able to do that but animals are not.

You will notice that I have only asked a question after you have made a claim. Now answer these questions or retract your claims. The list will get only longer the longer you wait to answer the questions while making new claims.

[PunkMaister]

Do you realize that all you are doing is pushing a Nihilistic point of view?
Retract and what? Admit that somehow you are right and nobody, no one nothing has any intrinsic value and we might as well all go and commit suicide right now because everything is irrelevant and nothing really matters or ever did? Hmm.. Let me think about it... The answer is NO!

I will never, ever accept your Nihilist point of view no matter how much you try to force it down my throat.


Now I cannot speak for the rest but those that want to join your little Nihilist club are welcome to do so, that is what free will is all about after all. But I will never yield...

[Who is like God arbour]

Now there is one more question: Define what free will is and prove that humans have a free will.

And as you would have noticed if you would have bothered to read that thread, I have nowhere stated my own opinion. I have merely asked you to define and explain the big words you are using.

If you want to argue that humans are superior to animals or plants, you have to prove it. If you say that humans have certain abilities which animals or plants have not, you have to explain what exactly these abilities are, to prove that only humans have theses abilities and to show that these abilities are relevant at all.

If you argue that one »cannot possibly apply the same human rights to Animals or plants« and that »there is no way to rationally apply human rights to either« and that »Anyone that even proposes such a thing is a Nutjob«, you should substantiate your claim and show the qualitative difference between humans, animals and plants and explain why that difference justifies a different treatment. It's your claim - not mine.

[PunkMaister]

Now there is one more question: Define what free will is and prove that humans have a free will.

And as you would have noticed if you would have bothered to read that thread, I have nowhere stated my own opinion. I have merely asked you to define and explain the big words you are using.

If you want to argue that humans are superior to animals or plants, you have to prove it. If you say that humans have certain abilities which animals or plants have not, you have to explain what exactly these abilities are, to prove that only humans have theses abilities and to show that these abilities are relevant at all.

If you argue that one »cannot possibly apply the same human rights to Animals or plants« and that »there is no way to rationally apply human rights to either« and that »Anyone that even proposes such a thing is a Nutjob«, you should substantiate your claim and show the qualitative difference between humans, animals and plants and explain why that difference justifies a different treatment. It's your claim - not mine.

Do plants or Animals question their place in the universe and the reason for them to even be around? To even exist? So far the evidence shows that they do not. Questions about one's own existence, the significance or relevance of our existence etc. We ask why! We are constantly asking the why of the natural order of things. No plant, no animal in this whole planet has been observed to question it's place in the scheme of things, only we do that. Tell me how do ask a dog what owner it would like? Or say we give dogs the same rights as we do as well as cats. How does that work? And yes I'm asking questions now. since you are so hellbent on somehow proving that there is no difference between humans and shrimp.

[GStone]

Not really they have given pencils and paper or even ink and canvasses to gorillas, chimps and even elephants and they just smear around paint. There is no abstract thinking or anything to what they are doing other than smearing paint on a canvas or emptily doodling on a paper. There is no depth, no perspective no nothing.

You've never heard of still life drawing, have you? Model drawing? Taking charcol and drawing fruit, bottles? A house in a field?

[sonofccn]

Prove that an alien would not think:
»Stupid humans. They can't be intelligent. They are polluting their own habitat, wage wars and are killing millions of themselves and are not able to ensure that each of them has what is necessary to survive although their planet has enough resources. There is a not irrelevant probability that they will destroy themselves. On the other side, the animals on this planet have to be intelligent because they are able to live in harmony with nature.«

The fact that humans clearly capable of smelting steel, building flying machines, cracking the atom would all imply we have gained mastery over our surrondings and have concious thought somewhere. There is no natural reason for humans to fly, it didn't occur by accident but by a concious decision. Now we could be considered inferior, stupid, backwards or just plain ugly but an alien capable of arriving to this planet would realize we have that divine spark of intelligence. Oh you realize nature isn't very nice right? That compared to the eat or be eaten rule of the jungle humanity are saints developing concepts as morality and ethics that if we don't live by at least would prefer to live by.

Define what a human is and how a human is different from animals and plants.

Humans have the guns...the others don't. so we are superior. :)

Define what sentient means and prove that humans are sentient and animals are not.

the fact that we can ask ourselves that question is a good benchmark for being self aware/sentient. If you want a good example of why animals are not then ask yourself why cows haven't led a massive revolt across the countryside. A sentient lifeform would have long ago figured out what the hell was going to happen to them.

Furthermore, show that all these abilities are somehow important for the question, if animals should have their own rights and that these are not arbitrary chosen criteria.

These questions serve to determine if you are capable of understanding your existence, your fallacy of demanding we prove an ant isn't self aware when you have no proof they they do not withstanding, for any determination to be made there must be standards to apply. That unfortantly means that under fair criteria little Timmy is worth more then all the lizards in the world.

I have a question for you, since you asked so many of us. If it meant saving the life of one human child would you exterminate an entire non vital to human existence species? There would be no major ecosystem fall out from this just to prevent you from that copout. I just want to know.

[PunkMaister]

Not really they have given pencils and paper or even ink and canvasses to gorillas, chimps and even elephants and they just smear around paint. There is no abstract thinking or anything to what they are doing other than smearing paint on a canvas or emptily doodling on a paper. There is no depth, no perspective no nothing.

You've never heard of still life drawing, have you? Model drawing? Taking charcol and drawing fruit, bottles? A house in a field?

Prove that any animal outside humans have ever drawn such a thing, oh wait you can't...

[sonofccn]

I'm sorry but reading some more of WILGA I couldn't help but respond to a couple more questions just for the sheer fun of it.

Define what human rights are and why a human is supposed to have such but no animal or plant.

Not to be raised for food would be a good starting point. I mean it's silly to ask this question, humans have rights because we are self-aware, you may disagree with this assesment but that is the reasoning, and animals are not, you may disagree but that is our rational. So extending from that we have rights because we are special and they do not have rights because they exist to serve us. You may disagree, call it unfair but I think that sums the answer to that question to a "T".

Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated

Because before there was education we had to invent education. There was no ingrained knoweldge passed on by genetics forged after countless generations. A guy figured out how to perform a task and passed this knowledge to others, knowledge the pupils were not hardwired to know how to do. To extend this I don't care how long and hard you teach a cat it will never become more then a cat conversly dropped in the wild a human, assuming he isn't devoured by one of those living in harmomy animals, can and will learn by his own trail and error and predict and advance from there.

Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.

A chimpanzee has the mental abilities of a 3 - 5 years old child [1, 2, 3].

If a chimpanzee does not has its own rights because he lacks certain mental abilities, does that mean, that a child also does not have its own rights because it also lacks certain mental abilities?

You do realize that in the strictness of senses we don't regard a five year old as sentient. We don't allow one to make thier own decisions based upon our knowledge that while Timmy may want to eat nothing but candy, stay up all night and not go to school that is not what isbest for him. We know he isn't ready to take care of himself, something we find repungent if we did it to say an adult. So even assuming a chimp is a perfect match for a three year old it wouldn't mean as much as you think. Timmy has rights because he is human and has true potentional. A chimp...a chimp will fling his own poo. Nice animal but that I'm afraid is all he is. A hairy distorted fun house mirror of man.

What is the objective criteria to say, what species is the dominant species of a planet?

The one who is not normally on anyone diet and can overall dine on all the other species if it so chooses.

Show me where I have said that there is no difference between humans and shrimps.

That is a logical progression from what you have said unless you *gasp* believe in some arbitary differnt between animals and humans. Either humans are unique with the possible exception of higher level chimps, or all life is equal and there is no is differnce between a snail and a human. You can't have a partial scale after all.

[PunkMaister]

Show me where I have said that there is no difference between humans and shrimps.

That is a logical progression from what you have said unless you *gasp* believe in some arbitary differnt between animals and humans. Either humans are unique with the possible exception of higher level chimps, or all life is equal and there is no is differnce between a snail and a human. You can't have a partial scale after all.

Exactly what I've been trying to say in so many words! Wilga you claim that this thread has nothing to do with your personal opinions on this subject but I reckon it does! Why else bring this to the table if not to make a point?

Your point seems to be that there is no difference whatsoever between Humans and Animals.That there is no way to distinguish between the 2! Well guess what? Shrimps are animals! So in your balance of things there is no difference between Humans and Shrimp in fact there is no difference between humans and Amoebas with your scale of things.


You see in this world right now there's 2 mayor schools of thought one that says we are unique as a species on the face of the Earth, that as such we must have a purpose and a higher purpose at that. Then there those that believe in empty existentialism and that everything is irrelevant and has no intrinsic value. That there is no difference between a mass murderer and somebody that risks his or her life to save others day in and day out. The question now given the context of this thread is which are you?

[Who is like God arbour]

Prove that an alien would not think:
»Stupid humans. They can't be intelligent. They are polluting their own habitat, wage wars and are killing millions of themselves and are not able to ensure that each of them has what is necessary to survive although their planet has enough resources. There is a not irrelevant probability that they will destroy themselves. On the other side, the animals on this planet have to be intelligent because they are able to live in harmony with nature.«

The fact that humans clearly capable of smelting steel, building flying machines, cracking the atom would all imply we have gained mastery over our surrondings and have concious thought somewhere. There is no natural reason for humans to fly, it didn't occur by accident but by a concious decision. Now we could be considered inferior, stupid, backwards or just plain ugly but an alien capable of arriving to this planet would realize we have that divine spark of intelligence. Oh you realize nature isn't very nice right? That compared to the eat or be eaten rule of the jungle humanity are saints developing concepts as morality and ethics that if we don't live by at least would prefer to live by.

If you would have bothered to read that thread, you would have noticed that your answer is insufficient.

• It is not disputed that our society has made great technology advancements.
  
  But the questions remains why that is supposed to be relevant for the question, which individuals of which species are entitled to their own rights and which are not.
  
  The Romans didn't have internet.
  
  In the Middle Ages most people couldn't read, write or calculate and there was no scientifical research.
  
  Does this mean that the humans from then wouldn't be entitled to their own rights?
  
  What is with primitive tribes in the tropical rain forest?

  • There are fossils of the homo sapiens dating back far over 100'000 years. The humans from then were not able to smelt steel, build flying machines or crack atoms. They haven't understood their surrounding and have believed that if it rains, god is crying or similiar nonesnse. The oldest known form of art dates back only 75.000 years. It is to assume that the humans before haven't had a use for art. And even then, art has had not the purpose from today but was a cultic occurrence, done either to appease alleged gods or to have something to worship substitutional for their alleged gods. Would they have been entitled to their own rights?
    
    Would e.g. a homo neanderthalensis, if the alien would have arrived on earth at a time, when this species still exists, be entitled to its own rights?

Define what a human is and how a human is different from animals and plants.

Humans have the guns...the others don't. so we are superior. :)

But that was not always so. See above.

Define what sentient means and prove that humans are sentient and animals are not.

the fact that we can ask ourselves that question is a good benchmark for being self aware/sentient. If you want a good example of why animals are not then ask yourself why cows haven't led a massive revolt across the countryside. A sentient lifeform would have long ago figured out what the hell was going to happen to them.

Here you are mixing up several terms: sentient, self-awareness and intelligence. That's why I have asked Punkmaster to define these terms. They are often used although their meaning is not known. But in such a debate, one has to know the exact meaning of such words if they are used.

Furthermore, show that all these abilities are somehow important for the question, if animals should have their own rights and that these are not arbitrary chosen criteria.

These questions serve to determine if you are capable of understanding your existence, your fallacy of demanding we prove an ant isn't self aware when you have no proof they they do not withstanding, for any determination to be made there must be standards to apply. That unfortantly means that under fair criteria little Timmy is worth more then all the lizards in the world.

That's the wrong approach to the problem. You have to be sure that an individual you will kill is not, as you would say, sentient, intelligent, self-aware. It's your task to prove it because you will be responsible for killing a sentient, intelligent, self-aware being. You have to be sure, that you are not violating the rights of an individual because you would be responsibel for killing a by rights protected individual. To say that your victim couldn't convince you that it is sentient, intelligent, self-aware or, even if it is not, protected by it own rights, would be a terrible defence.
That means that you have to be sure, which characteristics are relevant for the question, who has such rights. You have to be sure, that you have not arbitrary chosen criteria because you know that you would fulfil them because you have them. You have to choose criteria that would be universal accepted.
As I have already said, fossils of the homo sapiens are dating back far over 100'000 years. These humans are anatomical as far as possible identical with the humans from today. But you can't communicate with them and you will not see any signs of a modern civilisation. Compared to other mammals that are living in families, packs, prides, droves, flocks, folds or herds, there is no relevant difference in their behaviour. And while insects are constructing gigantic buildings, birds are constructing their nests and beavers dams, the homo sapiens from then lives still in caves.
Is it correct to kill such a beast?

I have a question for you, since you asked so many of us. If it meant saving the life of one human child would you exterminate an entire non vital to human existence species? There would be no major ecosystem fall out from this just to prevent you from that copout. I just want to know.

The logical answer has to be that it is not correct to extinguish a whole species for one individual that will die anyway - if not now, then in 100 years.
That would be the correct answer even if it would be my own child and I would act differently.

I'm sorry but reading some more of WILGA I couldn't help but respond to a couple more questions just for the sheer fun of it.

It would have been better if you would have not only read some of what I have written but all I have written.

Define what human rights are and why a human is supposed to have such but no animal or plant.

Not to be raised for food would be a good starting point.

1. Not each animal or plant is raised for food but also for other purposes.
2. But That's the same reasoning that has allowed the Ha-Shoah and slavery.
   The slaves were hold as property and bred as needed. They were raised for food - not that they would have been eaten, but they were tasked with the farm work.
   Now imagine that the Nazis wouldn't have choosen to kill the Jews but to hold them as animals an eat them.
3. And especially the Ha-Shoah would be also an answer for your question from above, why cows haven't led a massive revolt across the countryside. The Jews were gone in the gas chambers without the application of vis absoluta. There were even Jews who have helped with the killing. According to your logic, that would show, that the Jews from then didn't have self-awareness because they haven't led a massive revolt across the countryside.

I mean it's silly to ask this question, humans have rights because we are self-aware, you may disagree with this assesment but that is the reasoning, and animals are not, you may disagree but that is our rational. So extending from that we have rights because we are special and they do not have rights because they exist to serve us. You may disagree, call it unfair but I think that sums the answer to that question to a "T".

I don't say, that I disagree with the statement, that humans are self-aware.
The question remains, what self-awareness is at all, why you assume that animals are not self-aware and why you assume that this ability is relevant at all.

Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated

Because before there was education we had to invent education. There was no ingrained knoweldge passed on by genetics forged after countless generations. A guy figured out how to perform a task and passed this knowledge to others, knowledge the pupils were not hardwired to know how to do. To extend this I don't care how long and hard you teach a cat it will never become more then a cat conversly dropped in the wild a human, assuming he isn't devoured by one of those living in harmomy animals, can and will learn by his own trail and error and predict and advance from there.

That answer does not define what intelligence is.

Until now, nobody has claimed, that education is a relevant criteria for the question who is entitled to its own rights. But if it is a relevant criteria, does this mean that humans who don't get education have no own rights?

Besides education is something that animals have also. Not each species, but some.

Furthermore it is more than doubtful that a normal human that would unprepared land on an island could survive. That's why there are today so called survival trainings - most people don't know, how to survive in the wild. But even if it could survive, you wouldn't find any traces of civilisation any more. It would be difficult, if possible at all, to find differences to the behaviour of animals.

Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.

A chimpanzee has the mental abilities of a 3 - 5 years old child [1, 2, 3].

If a chimpanzee does not has its own rights because he lacks certain mental abilities, does that mean, that a child also does not have its own rights because it also lacks certain mental abilities?

You do realize that in the strictness of senses we don't regard a five year old as sentient. We don't allow one to make thier own decisions based upon our knowledge that while Timmy may want to eat nothing but candy, stay up all night and not go to school that is not what isbest for him. We know he isn't ready to take care of himself, something we find repungent if we did it to say an adult. So even assuming a chimp is a perfect match for a three year old it wouldn't mean as much as you think. Timmy has rights because he is human and has true potentional. A chimp...a chimp will fling his own poo. Nice animal but that I'm afraid is all he is. A hairy distorted fun house mirror of man.

Does this mean, that the criteria for rights is to be human?

Or does this mean, that Jimmy does not have rights until he has developed what you are calling sentience?

Or does this mean, that Jimmy has rights because he has the potential to develop what you are calling sentience? But means this also that, if Jimmy is terminally ill and there is not doubt that he will die in a few weeks and that he will never develop what you are calling sentience that he would have no rights because there is no potential to develop what you are calling sentience? And does this mean that a human who is born with a mental disability and who will never develop what you are calling sentience, has also no rights because there is no potential to develop what you are calling sentience?

What is the objective criteria to say, what species is the dominant species of a planet?

The one who is not normally on anyone diet and can overall dine on all the other species if it so chooses.

Humans are not able to eat all species because many are poisoned. Have fun trying to eat a Amanita phalloides.
And bacteria, mold or insects can "eat" more species than humans can. You will find them all-around.

Show me where I have said that there is no difference between humans and shrimps.

That is a logical progression from what you have said unless you *gasp* believe in some arbitary differnt between animals and humans. Either humans are unique with the possible exception of higher level chimps, or all life is equal and there is no is differnce between a snail and a human. You can't have a partial scale after all.

See, that comes from not reading a thread in which you want to participate. I have never said that there is no difference between a human and a shrimp. Quite the contrary: There are differences between all species. That's what makes a species unique. The question I have asked it why the uniqueness of a human is considered special compared to the uniqueness of other species.

[Who is like God arbour]

...

Read the thread, answer the questions and stop to assume to know what I'm thinking without even reading that thread.

[Kane Starkiller]

Who is like God arbour it has been pointed out to you time and time again the various examples that clearly make humans superior to any other species on Earth. Your only rebuttal is that humans didn't always have the mentioned technologies. So what? The difference between ancient Romans and today humans is still much smaller than the difference between the Romans and any animal on the Earth. And 100,000 years ago no one claimed that humans are special. In fact we were regularly hunted down by hyenas and lions and had to struggle for our every meal.

The "rights" we humans enjoy are man made laws that we invented. If you wish to claim animals or plants should also be covered under these rights you are welcome to prove it and stop shifting the burden of proof on the other side.

[Who is like God arbour]

Who is like God arbour it has been pointed out to you time and time again the various examples that clearly make humans superior to any other species on Earth. Your only rebuttal is that humans didn't always have the mentioned technologies.

No, it was pointed out that humans have had technological advancement.

The questions why this is supposed to mean that humans are objective superior or why this is supposed to be relevant for the question, which individuals of which species are entitled to their own rights are still unanswered.

So what? The difference between ancient Romans and today humans is still much smaller than the difference between the Romans and any animal on the Earth. And 100,000 years ago no one claimed that humans are special. In fact we were regularly hunted down by hyenas and lions and had to struggle for our every meal.

Exactly. But if they were anatomical nearly identical to us, why wouldn't they be entitled to their own rights although they would be able to the same mental capacities? The only difference would be, that they didn't have known as much as we know today and that this has influenced their behaviour as out knowledge does influence our behaviour.

What would happen if you would find an island were humans are living as they have lived 100.000 years ago?

What would happen if you would find a primitve tribe in the tropical rain forest?

How do you decide if they are entitled to their own rights?

A favourite gedankenexperiment from me is the following: Humans life on a isolated island. They reproduce but because they are few they have no choice but to inbreed. This results in individuals who are very small, who have fur (Hypertrichosis), large canine tooth and a tail as an atavism. They all are - compared to our standards - mentally retarded. But they still have a human genome.
Now you are coming on that island. You don't know their history, don't know that their ancestors were indisputable humans (and you have no way to find it out). All you know is what you see.
Are these creatures humans? Are they entitled to human rights? Or can you kill them as you would kill something that is indisputable not a human?

The "rights" we humans enjoy are man made laws that we invented.

That could be the beginning of an honest approach to that topic.

If you wish to claim animals or plants should also be covered under these rights you are welcome to prove it and stop shifting the burden of proof on the other side.

As you would have noticed would you have read that thread, I have claimed nothing.

And to the burden of proof, I refer to an already made statement:

• That's the wrong approach to the problem. You have to be sure that an individual you will kill is not, as you would say, sentient, intelligent, self-aware. It's your task to prove it because you will be responsible for killing a sentient, intelligent, self-aware being. You have to be sure, that you are not violating the rights of an individual because you would be responsibel for killing a by rights protected individual. To say that your victim couldn't convince you that it is sentient, intelligent, self-aware or, even if it is not, protected by it own rights, would be a terrible defence.
  That means that you have to be sure, which characteristics are relevant for the question, who has such rights. You have to be sure, that you have not arbitrary chosen criteria because you know that you would fulfil them because you have them. You have to choose criteria that would be universal accepted.
  As I have already said, fossils of the homo sapiens are dating back far over 100'000 years. These humans are anatomical as far as possible identical with the humans from today. But you can't communicate with them and you will not see any signs of a modern civilisation. Compared to other mammals that are living in families, packs, prides, droves, flocks, folds or herds, there is no relevant difference in their behaviour. And while insects are constructing gigantic buildings, birds are constructing their nests and beavers dams, the homo sapiens from then lives still in caves.
  Is it correct to kill such a beast?