> H. ergaster could also travel and hunt in the middle of the day, when most animals rest.
I'd rather say "when most other animals rest". The article recognizes we're not ontologically special, but there are still traces in the phrasing.
?!? Downvote? What could that be for? I'm just pointing out a minor contradiction. I may be a little off topic, but that hardly clutters this small page. Or is this because we are ontologically special (having immaterial souls)? But then (1) I didn't say that, and (2) current evidence doesn't actually support that.
If I could downvote, I would, because 1) Your point is ridiculously minor and not supported by the article, 2) you whine about being downvoted, 3) you assume bad faith everywhere.
I accept "minor" (but not "ridiculously"), and point 2. As I said in comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2687417 I understood my comment wasn't clear enough. My edit should have added clarifications, not whining. Sorry.
I deny point 3. The probability I assign to downvote due do religious disagreement is very low. I was nevertheless surprised. My comment was the second ever written on that thread. It was very short. It wasn't really meant to spur answers. And the contribution, though very small, is real.
I don't understand "not supported by the article". It explicitly talks about the continuum between Homo Sapiens and all other Homo species. If they hadn't disappeared, we could have seen it, and may have revised our long standing assumption that we are special among all animals. In that respect, they do recognize we are not so special, at least not a priori special. But still, they used the vocabulary in a way that does assume we are a priori special. All this is pretty obvious for me, but I suppose that "Humans are animals" is not a thought that most cache. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cached_thought
You're overly zealous to push this point. That phrasing does not at all imply that humans are "special," nor that they aren't animals. Here's a precisely cognate sentence:
I am asleep at 10 a.m. on Fridays, when most people are at work.
OK, maybe I wasn't explicit enough, then. I wanted to stress the fact that, even though most atheists completely accept that humans are animals like any others, just with "bigger" brains, there is still vestiges of the time where we thought it was not the same at all.
Some of those vestiges can be found in our language. Here, it was saying "human and animals" instead of the more correct "human and other animals" (without the emphasis of course). This kind of phrasing tend to promote the higher status of humankind as self evident, while frankly it is not. (I've read once that Dolphins may be almost as sentient and sapient as we are. In this case, they should have right they currently don't have.)
We now know that making up a category that includes all fishes, insects, birds, reptiles… and all mammals (including apes), but Homo Sapiens and some of its now extinct cousins isn't reasonable.
Unless of course if you believe that humans have immaterial souls and animals do not. That would make us very special. But the probability I assign to this possibility is negligible.
Even biologists have such a category: They call it "non-human animals". You might argue that this category is not generally useful, but it's not "wrong." That is itself a sort of superstition.
Well, at least by putting "non-human" in "non-human animals", they understood that human shouldn't be excluded by default.
By "wrong" I essentially meant "you shouldn't do that", here because it is misleading. Using the single word "animal" when you actually mean "non-human animal" suggest we humans are not animals. We are.
Now you changed my mind a bit: the "non-human animals" category does have its uses, and it does make sense to think of it. I just think it doesn't deserve the shorter expression "animals".
(I've read once that Dolphins may be almost as sentient and sapient as we are. In this case, they should have right they currently don't have.)
Like which ones? The useless (to dolphins) ones such as freedom of speech or owning property, or the ones many humans don't have like kind treatment and living in an uncontested land like they used to?
The second kind of course. Priority should still be given to humans (if only because it's my specie), but we should keep in mind the other animals, especially the most advanced ones.
I suspect however that once the world treats its humans well (if ever), then the other animals will also be in much better shape.
I'd rather say "when most other animals rest". The article recognizes we're not ontologically special, but there are still traces in the phrasing.
?!? Downvote? What could that be for? I'm just pointing out a minor contradiction. I may be a little off topic, but that hardly clutters this small page. Or is this because we are ontologically special (having immaterial souls)? But then (1) I didn't say that, and (2) current evidence doesn't actually support that.