If you can't be bothered reading my entire reply then don't bother replying as anything you have to say will probablly already be covered in the comment. I would appreciate it if you did give it a good read through at least once however, as I took a lot of time to explain my point of view.
Clearly you've made as much effort to distort what I said as much as possible. I never said that animals are more important, just that we have absolutely no proof that human beings are of a higher universal value, as in we have no proof that our lives are any more sacred than that of another species, regardless of our advantages. Unless you have proof of such things? Otherwise any arguement you make to the contrary is sheer sentimentalism. True, humans are the most intelligent forms of life on the planet but intellect is only as good as what you do with it and for most people, this doesn't amount to much more than working some pointless job in a factory or office, which is generally of a more detrimental effect to the whole world than a positive one.
In regards to the point I made about being more interested in saving a member of an endangered species than in saving starving humans, I would say that the world is not in need of more humans as we already have more than the planet can sustain. Besides in continients like Africa that have a high quantity of starving humans, there is already not enough food and water to go round, although only 300 million people live there, the area simply doesn't have the resources to support them all so all these humanitarian movements are actually worsening their problems and that of the whole world.
Unlike most species, human beings don't seem to have a natural mechanism that stops them from living beyond their means instinctively and it is for this reason that we need to understand and act on the problem of human overpopulation on an intellectual level and not a sentimental one.
In regards to your comment Charlie, it is true that human beings might be the "fittest" or the most advantaged species on the planet but consider this: If Westerners were to be cut off from the benefits of their supermakets, sewage system, facilities, electricity and first world medicine etc, ect, what do you think would happen to the majority of them? Lacking any form of self-suffiency, they would probably starve to death. What this shows is that the majority of people are in fact quite dependent on their Government for food and are probably a lot weaker than some of the endangered species you condemn because of the destruction of their natural habitats, rather than the artificial ones that most human beings rely on to spood feed them, their survival.
Jayla, I won't bother replying to your misinterpretation of my comment as it shows how moronic you are.
Furthermore, if it is the biological/intellectual advantages of humanity that make us of higher universal value than other species and not just more advantaged in terms of survival (Our biological advantage is undenieably a merely an advantage of intellect since human beings aren't the physically strongest species), then that doesn't explain our different treatment of species of higher sentimental value to us
For example: We slaughter a countless of number of pigs each day as livestock but most people, if not a good quantity, would view the slaughter of a cat or dog as being a horrible thing, despite the fact that pigs are smarter than domestic cats and around the same level of intelligence as that of a dog, yet we slaughter them without any qualms.
If its biological differences (Whether through physical strength or intelligence) that determine a species worth, on its on, (as you've said with your "Survival of the fittest" comment) then why do we treat pet animals more kindly for sentimental reasons when there are more intelligent species that we couldn't care less for?
My point is that we don't judge any species by what their actual advantages in terms of survival are anyway, so its silly to claim that our lives are more sacred simply because we are a stronger organism. The reason that we don't like to admit this is probably because if we stripped away the physical and intellectual differientation we would probably find that we aren't too different, in the sense that the same will to power and surival exist in all life, human or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)