This is about what makes humans different from other animals. Many would say there is obviously something special about humans, either positively or negatively, we are the only animal to be on every continent, we have shown the power to destroy mountains, redirect water flows, cause numerous species to go extinct, built constructions to the sky, etc. Some would include culture and our complex social interactions among these while others would argue many or all other species also exhibit culture or near or equally as complex social relationships. Regardless, few would disagree that human have done things no other species has done or foreseeably will do. So my question is why?

Is it genetics? Did we happen to experience some spectacular mutation which is responsible? Contrary to this many studies show our genes differ by only 1.6% from chimpanzees, while chimpanzees differ form gorillas by 2.3%, and some inter-species differences can be as much as 2.6% between the red-eyed and white-eyed vireos.

Regardless of whether it came from genetics, is it language or culture, or some similar reason that allowed us to seemingly become so disparate with the rest of animalkind? Recent studies have shown phenomena in groups of animals that very much resemble cultural behavior, and not only have animals been shown to be able to learn our language, but a recent study showed that prairie dogs differentiate their warning chirps for predators, including different variations for different animals, different sizes, and even different colors of shirts. Some would still argue that we differ because of an exceedingly more complex language or culture than other animals, but this is hard to prove.

One viewpoint that encompasses both of these is that the crucial factor is the larynx, which allows much more complex language than supposedly any other animal is capable of.

On the opposite side, are we missing something perhaps? Some would claim we are very much a negative force on our planet, and perhaps we lost some genetic or cultural factor that prevented us from becoming this way?

Another possibility is we really are not that different from the other animals in any significant way, but we just experienced a fortuitous (or infortuitous) chain of events and situations that developed us into what we are.

TLDR:
Are humans just another animal or are we somehow above (or below) the rest of them?
If we are so different, what is the cause if any?

What are your views?

I think we're just another animal, but along the course of time we got 'bigger brains' and because of that we were more able to control our environment than other animals.

As to being a negative force on this planet- kind of. We're only bad from a certain perspective. Technically since we're natural what we do is natural. It's only bad for the planet in the sense that it changes it. Personally I do think it's bad, just because I like it the way it is and all that. We're not missing anything though. Animals do what's best for them/survive and we're technically just doing that, methinks.

Originally Posted by Hermes

I think we're just another animal, but along the course of time we got 'bigger brains' and because of that we were more able to control our environment than other animals.

As to being a negative force on this planet- kind of. We're only bad from a certain perspective. Technically since we're natural what we do is natural. It's only bad for the planet in the sense that it changes it. Personally I do think it's bad, just because I like it the way it is and all that. We're not missing anything though. Animals do what's best for them/survive and we're technically just doing that, methinks.

Including the things we do that endanger our own survival? I.e. making our planet unliveable faster than we're developing the technology to colonize other planets, pursuing technology that solves some problems but at a great risk, etc.

It's not deliberate extinction. Then again, I'm sure someone somewhere has said that Foresight is what separates us from the animals.

Though you do prove that a lot of that paragraph was wrong. D:

Originally Posted by Hermes

I think we're just another animal, but along the course of time we got 'bigger brains' and because of that we were more able to control our environment than other animals.

As to being a negative force on this planet- kind of. We're only bad from a certain perspective. Technically since we're natural what we do is natural. It's only bad for the planet in the sense that it changes it. Personally I do think it's bad, just because I like it the way it is and all that. We're not missing anything though. Animals do what's best for them/survive and we're technically just doing that, methinks.

Big brains is one theory as though we had maintained a fairly linked brain and body size increase as our ancestors separated from primates, about 100,000 years ago the brains continued growing while our body size decreased, but two detracting points are that our brains have actually been decreasing for about 30,000 years now and that humans' close relative Neanderthals had larger brains.

Is brain power directly linked to the size of the brain?
As to the Neanderthals, I'm not saying the large brain is what makes us survive, but it is what separates us from 'animals', so far as I thought. I would have considered neanderthals another 'people,' not an 'animal'. There are plenty of reason to not survive regardless of smartness.

Maybe this is the obligatory answer for one of my leanings, but I would assert one of the keys to understanding humanity lies in the uniqueness that we have through our status of being a cultural species. Now it is important to note that as you alluded to in your initial post, there is contention as to how truly unique this is. Not only that but there are disagreements over the very concept of culture. As such I would like to draw on the differentiation between social & cultural as held by anthropologists such as Roger M. Keesing. Namely that culture refers to the ideational and symbolic aspects, those which relate to how we perceive, evaluate and internalize the world around us. The social in contrast relates to more institutional aspects such as how we behave, that is the observable phenomena. This distinction is something I find quite useful, especially given the current discussion. When it comes to the social for instance, there are plenty of examples of animals demonstrating they are capable of this. One instantly is inclined to bring up the Bonobo for instance. As such I would view the social distinction as being vastly weaker than the cultural. Indeed I would be so brash as to assert that any social differentiation between human groups and other animals come as a result of culture. Now I do not of course preclude other species from culture. One only needs to look at the work done by Psychologist Harry Frederick Harlow to see how cultural other species can be.

Another thing I thought of, a theory becoming popular now among conspiracy theorists is that we are aliens or that aliens artificially enhanced our growth thousands of years ago.