Quote Originally Posted by Hersir View Post
If we are no different then why can we make advance tools, rely more on knowledge than instincts, can see the bigger picture, have stronger ties with family and friends etc? We have a much stronger brain, we can walk on two legs so we can carry with us things and get a good overview etc.
Differences are of degree, not of kind. Whereabouts, on the gradually changing evolutionary tree, would you pinpoint the first human. Such language is zoological till you bring in old philosophical baggage.

Our Norse forebears did not recognise such a concept as humans: only the Norse and, one assumes, Norse-like peoples. The Sami to their north were categorised as between Norse and animals, similar to bears. Sami themselves did not even recognise other Sami groups as "human" (or the closest Sami vocabulary to human). Such ingroup/outgroup attitudes are normal for tribal peoples, many ethnonyms are the word for man/person. Universalist concepts of humanity are late and they took time to evolve.

This is one of those things, where supposed inclusiveness is actually racist and supremacist. Currently there is a movement to criminalise the denial of humanity to a group. Yet such a move criminalises self-identities of countless indigenous peoples. Nor is it morally justified: there is no evidence that such peoples are on average more violent than universalists, actually, quite the opposite.