mellownomad30 said:Look, it's not like I'm trying to trash animals. I'm just saying that the more we try to deny the reality of how things work globally, the more we just end up getting better at lying to ourselves. We haven't moved forward an inch; we've just mastered self-delusion.
And regarding that whole "pack solidarity" thing... don't they have hierarchies too? The weak ones bow down to the strong. Where's the equality there? Where's the solidarity?
Your fundamental issue is that you haven't actually read anything. You have zero clue what you’re talking about, and you can't even distinguish between basic concepts. Honestly, you clearly struggle with basic grammar, too.
Concepts. Existence.
Hierarchies. They're everywhere. We try to organize ourselves, build structures, and create ladders to climb, thinking it brings order to the chaos. But most of the time, it's just a way to consolidate power or pretend there's a logic to the madness. Whether it’s in a corporate office in Chicago or a social circle in Los Angeles, someone is always trying to sit at the top of the pile. It's an inherent part of how we function, for better or worse. It doesn't shut down automatically.
Solidarity isn't just some lofty, abstract concept you read about in history books or hear mentioned in political speeches. It’s practical. It’s gritty. It’s the backbone of any functioning society. When people actually stand together to support one another—not because they have to by law, but because they choose to out of shared principle—that’s when real progress happens. Without that collective will, we’re just a collection of individuals drifting in separate directions, looking out only for ourselves. Real solidarity requires skin in the game..
Conquest. It’s not being abolished.
Equality. It’s a heavy word, isn't it? Everyone loves to throw it around in political speeches or social media debates like it’s some kind of magic wand that fixes everything. But when you actually sit down and look at it, the concept gets messy fast. Is it about everyone having the exact same starting line, or is it about everyone being treated by the same set of rules once the race begins? People argue over this constantly, yet rarely do they define what they actually mean. It’s easy to demand equality in theory; it’s a much more complicated beast when you try to apply it to the real world..
Solidarity isn't just some lofty concept you read about in a textbook. It’s the backbone of any functioning society. Without that collective sense of duty to one another, we’re just a bunch of individuals drifting in isolation, looking out only for ourselves. Real solidarity means showing up when things get messy, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with your neighbors, and recognizing that my well-being is tied directly to yours. It’s easy to talk about unity when the sun is shining, but the true test comes during the storms. That’s when you see who actually stands by the community and who just watches from the sidelines. It doesn't follow.
Equality. It’s a concept we throw around constantly in this country, usually as a way to score points or claim moral high ground. But let's be honest: true equality is rarely about fairness and almost always about optics. We talk about leveling the playing field while everyone is busy trying to tilt it in their own favor. It's a constant tug-of-war where nobody actually wants to reach the middle..
I’d suggest consulting a dictionary—even just a standard one if you don't feel like diving into something more "philosophical."
Look at the animal kingdom. It’s not just chaos. You see hierarchy, you see solidarity, you see submission, and you see equality. All of it exists right there in nature.
Most pack animals understand hierarchy. It isn't some random social quirk; it’s a functional mechanism designed to keep the group from falling into total chaos.
The mere existence of a pack and its hierarchy inherently demands solidarity. A pack hunts together—that’s solidarity. They drive off enemies as a unit—solidarity. They raise and protect their young collectively—solidarity. Solidarity is the entire point of "pack behavior." If the members aren't standing together, then the whole concept of a pack is meaningless. Think about it: if you hunt together but don't share the kill, nobody has any incentive to stay in that group. Animals that lack this sense of solidarity live solitary lives, like bears or moles.
The strength of pack mentality really depends on the species, I’ll admit. A troop of baboons or a herd of elephants will fight to the death to protect one of their own. But a herd of deer? They’ll scatter the second wolves show up.
I think I see where you're getting tripped up. You’re probably hung up on the idea that the alpha eats first and takes the lion's share. That isn't a lack of solidarity; it's just basic hierarchy. In a pack, no single individual is left to starve, except in those extreme cases where keeping them alive puts the survival of the entire group at risk. That is what true solidarity looks like.
Look at the way lions and vultures handle a meal. It’s a completely different game. Among lions, there's a structured hierarchy; they allow other members of the pride to eat, and the kill is divided according to rank. But you won't see a single vulture being invited to the table by those lions. There is zero solidarity among vultures. They aren't part of the pride. Notice how the lion clearly knows what he is? They recognize their own equality and instinctively shut out anything that isn't a lion. Even those who didn't participate in the hunt—the younger cubs—still get their share. And if a lion from a different pride shows up, he's going to be driven off immediately, unless he spends enough time proving he actually belongs to that group. If books are too much of a struggle for you, I suggest watching a David Attenborough documentary instead. It seems like your preferred medium.
The existence of hierarchy and submitting to stronger individuals doesn't imply a lack of equality. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: equality within a pack is a functional reality. Every single individual possesses the capacity to challenge anyone positioned "higher" up the ladder and elevate their own status. Any member can become a leader, and any leader, once their strength wanes, will inevitably be replaced. In multi-species packs—think of a group consisting of humans, dogs, and cats—inter-species equality exists too. A hierarchy will naturally establish itself between those three distinct species based on the specific individuals involved, and that structure is never set in stone; there is always a chance for the dynamic to shift. Members of the pack might internally believe something entirely different, much like when you say with absolute certainty, "the dog doesn't even know he's a dog." 🙄), but in practice, they function as solidary, equal units. For this debate to move forward, we need to be crystal clear about what "equality" actually means. It isn't synonymous with "sameness." Take a pack of wolves, for example: there is equality in their mutual relationship and solidarity, even though one individual can solve differential equations and wield a firearm while the other could easily kill them both without breaking a sweat. 🤷
Inequality definitely exists within packs. Inequality manifests as certain individuals being unable to occupy specific positions. In hyenas, for instance, a male cannot be the pack leader. With wolves, the leader is always a male. With domestic cats, a younger female can't override an older one. And so on. Those are manifestations of INEQUALITY. I don't know, it’s difficult to explain this via text, but you would likely characterize the fact that Person A is a construction worker and Person B is a CEO at the same firm as "inequality." They are EQUAL; they possess equal rights, they just don't hold the same position. 🤷
So yes, humans are absolutely animals.
But not because of the arguments and claims you're presenting; those are simply wrong, uninformed, baseless, born from prejudice or perhaps limited personal experience with a very small sample size—and on top of all that, they are poorly written. 🤷
A brief side note on:
I assume someone might argue that it's not like that, that they just want to know themselves and be a good person. Think about the actual reasons why that is. Because by showing your "true face," you decrease your chances within the "pack."
That statement actually implies you believe your "true face" isn't worthy of the pack you're trying to prove yourself to. In other words, you're an insecure person who holds a very low opinion of your own "true self."
Furthermore, the idea that EVERYONE wants to be the Alpha in society is completely flawed. It sounds more like the arrogance of someone who fails to grasp pack hierarchy, the various levels that exist, and the respective pros and cons of each position.
A HUGE—perhaps too huge—number of people don't want to be the Alpha; instead, they are perfectly content having someone else take care of them while they enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor. If EVERYONE wanted to be an Alpha, we'd have 4.5 million candidates running for President. 🤷
My guess is that the real question is, "How do I become an ALPHA so I can get laid?"
Hint: in the human pack, every hierarchical level gets screwed.
