Is human life worth more than the lives of other species? Watch

TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#1
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes, then humans must be the most crucial component of life to work towards such objective, no? Considering our technological advancements and future potential, intelligence and self-awareness, we have the environment at our fingertips which we can manipulate to create rockets and colonize other planets.

Even if some humans are evil and create chaos for biological life (a mass murdurer, say) they still carry with them the potential of self-actualization and contribution to his or her species, whereas 10, 100 or 1000 elephants do not. It just so happened that a particular set of events occurred to drive this person into such as delusional and flawed mindset (be it partially genetic, due to upbringing or bad life experience).

Though, of course, this does not mean eradication of species is okay, however the sacrifice of animal life for the betterment of the planet's apex species should not be argued with (in the case of animal testing for example). It is an investment into the progression of biological life as a whole. Consider what would happen if humans were to die out to a epidemic of some kind which could have been prevented through mass animal testing to find a cure. Even if life were to continue up until the expansion of the sun into a Red Giant, it would be unlikely that something as complex as humans would arise again.

Again I am not saying killing animals for any reason just because we're humans is okay, what I am saying is that the argument against animal testing is wrong in my opinion.

Yes we are animals just like elephants or turtles, intelligent apes even, but we are apes with rockets, cities and satellites who are striving to spread the biological seed into the universe.

Just wanted to know other people's opinion on this topic.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by TheProctor; 5 months ago
1
reply
Mil99
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 months ago
#2
(Original post by TheProctor)
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes, then humans must be the most crucial component of life to work towards such objective, no? Considering our technological advancements and future potential, intelligence and self-awareness, we have the environment at our fingertips which we can manipulate to create rockets and colonize other planets.

Even if some humans are evil and create chaos for biological life (a mass murdurer, say) they still carry with them the potential of self-actualization and contribution to his or her species, whereas 10, 100 or 1000 elephants do not. It just so happened that a particular set of events occurred to drive this person into such as delusional and flawed mindset (be it partially genetic, due to upbringing or bad life experience).

Though, of course, this does not mean eradication of species is okay, however the sacrifice of animal life for the betterment of the planet's apex species should not be argued with (in the case of animal testing for example). It is an investment into the progression of biological life as a whole. Consider what would happen if humans were to die out to a epidemic of some kind which could have been prevented through mass animal testing to find a cure. Even if life were to continue up until the expansion of the sun into a Red Giant, it would be unlikely that something as complex as humans would arise again.

Again I am not saying killing animals for any reason just because we're humans is okay, what I am saying is that the argument against animal testing is wrong in my opinion.

Yes we are animals just like elephants or turtles, intelligent apes even, but we are apes with rockets, cities and satellites who are striving to spread the biological seed into the universe.

Just wanted to know other people's opinion on this topic.
You mention a few differences between humans and other species as being our intelligence, our resources/wealth and consciousness.

So I ask, if person A has less intelligence, resources and/or consciousness than person B, does this mean person A has less right for life than person B ?
3
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#3
(Original post by Mil99)
You mention a few differences between humans and other species as being our intelligence, our resources/wealth and consciousness.

So I ask, if person A has less intelligence, resources and/or consciousness than person B, does this mean person A has less right for life than person B ?
No, because they are human and have the potential of becoming Person B, whereas animals do not. Person A could stop being a criminal, stop taking drugs, go to school, go to university and then become a engineer to contribute to the advancements of science, for example. Every human has within them the ability to improve themselves - because they have self-awareness. It just so happened that they have fallen into the wrong frame of mind, likely due to their upbringing and life experience.

Some humans just have not developed enough courage and discipline to create better version of themselves and have given in to their impulses (that is why we have so many obese, lazy and careless people floating around). Animals do not even have the capacity to overcome their impulses, because they do not have self-awareness and the ability to think.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
username4241764
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 months ago
#4
I don't think it's up to us to judge this. I don't agree it particularly is objectively, but to us it probably is considering it's in our best interests as humans to think so. Even if it was, I don't see any reason for us to do harm to or to look down on other species, unless they're directly harmful to us, because of it. Seems a bit self-entitled of us to consider ourselves the best, and that we're basically the most important thing to ever happen in the history of the universe.
4
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#5
(Original post by RockishBlue)
I don't think it's up to us to judge this. I don't agree it particularly is objectively, but to us it probably is considering it's in our best interests as humans to think so. Even if it was, I don't see any reason for us to do harm to or to look down on other species, unless they're directly harmful to us, because of it. Seems a bit self-entitled of us to consider ourselves the best, and that we're basically the most important thing to ever happen in the history of the universe.
If not us then who?

And we sort of are the most important thing that has happened in the universe - we are the most complex thing ever to exist, as far as we know. Human beings are a miracle - an immensely rare anomaly in the nothingness of the cosmos. I agree that there is no reason for us to harm other species, however I do not understand the reasons behind the argument against animal testing.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
username4241764
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 months ago
#6
(Original post by TheProctor)
If not us then who?

And we sort of are the most important thing that has happened in the universe - we are the most complex thing ever to exist, as far as we know. Human beings are a miracle - an immensely rare anomaly in the nothingness of the cosmos. I agree that there is no reason for us to harm other species, however I do not understand the reasons behind the argument against animal testing.
Welp I forgot to add that argument

I'm pretty sure a lot of scientists think there's a good chance of other complex lifeforms out there.

And why are we more important just because we're complex? Why can't every species be important? I mean, dolphins are just as if not more intelligent than us - they just don't have opposable thumbs. And what about ants and their complex colonies? I'm pretty sure there's other examples and that's just at the present point in history on one tiny planet.

In one way I sort of get animal testing, but I think it should really be kept to a minimum. Not to mention we have the ability to grow artificial tissues to test products and medicines on too, and computer models. Animal testing can be done to minimise suffering, and hopefully soon it won't be necessary at all. I think it's a horrible thing, and many medical advancements - for example the vaccine and antibiotics, didn't involve animals in their testing procedures at all.

I also think it's a pretty dangerous argument to make that more intelligence equals better, as another poster said, that could easily turn into some social Darwinism stuff which gets pretty nasty pretty quick.
0
reply
Bio 7
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 months ago
#7
(Original post by TheProctor)
If not us then who?

And we sort of are the most important thing that has happened in the universe - we are the most complex thing ever to exist, as far as we know. Human beings are a miracle - an immensely rare anomaly in the nothingness of the cosmos. I agree that there is no reason for us to harm other species, however I do not understand the reasons behind the argument against animal testing.
Well given the number of worlds we have decided could be habitable, life would eventually pop up somewhere.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Bio 7; 5 months ago
0
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#8
(Original post by RockishBlue)
Welp I forgot to add that argument

I'm pretty sure a lot of scientists think there's a good chance of other complex lifeforms out there.

And why are we more important just because we're complex? Why can't every species be important? I mean, dolphins are just as if not more intelligent than us - they just don't have opposable thumbs. And what about ants and their complex colonies? I'm pretty sure there's other examples and that's just at the present point in history on one tiny planet.

In one way I sort of get animal testing, but I think it should really be kept to a minimum. Not to mention we have the ability to grow artificial tissues to test products and medicines on too, and computer models. Animal testing can be done to minimise suffering, and hopefully soon it won't be necessary at all. I think it's a horrible thing, and many medical advancements - for example the vaccine and antibiotics, didn't involve animals in their testing procedures at all.

I also think it's a pretty dangerous argument to make that more intelligence equals better, as another poster said, that could easily turn into some social Darwinism stuff which gets pretty nasty pretty quick.
I agree there is a high probability of life elsewhere in the universe, which we should treat with care and respect if we were to encounter them, however do you not think for the purposes of further technological advancement and the spreading of Earth life into the universe (in the form of humans), we should not hesitate to sacrifice some animal life for this objective? And by sacrifice I mean mainly animal testing - that is if testing is required (for instance testing a new drug to improve physical endurance or something) to bring us closer to that goal, then we should not hesitate to do it?

It's crucial to turn humans into a multi-planetary species, as a single volcanic event (like Yellowstone), a meteorite of a certain size, a disease or a large enough solar flare could destroy humanity very quickly, thus deleting all of the progress us humans have achieved. It would take many millions of years to achieve the same incredibly rare stage of complex biological life
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#9
(Original post by Bio 7)
Well given the number of worlds we have decided could be habitable, life would eventually pop up somewhere.
Yes it probably would, however why not maximize the opportunity us humans (complex biological life) already have to keep improving and becoming multi-planetary? That would allow us to truly have a backup for civilization and cherish this extremely rare occasion in the universe.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
username4241764
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 months ago
#10
(Original post by TheProctor)
I agree there is a high probability of life elsewhere in the universe, which we should treat with care and respect if we were to encounter them, however do you not think for the purposes of further technological advancement and the spreading of Earth life into the universe (in the form of humans), we should not hesitate to sacrifice some animal life for this objective? And by sacrifice I mean mainly animal testing - that is if testing is required (for instance testing a new drug to improve physical endurance or something) to bring us closer to that goal, then we should not hesitate to do it?

It's crucial to turn humans into a multi-planetary species, as a single volcanic event (like Yellowstone), a meteorite of a certain size, a disease or a large enough solar flare could destroy humanity very quickly, thus deleting all of the progress us humans have achieved. It would take many millions of years to achieve the same incredibly rare stage of complex biological life
I don't like the word 'sacrifice'. Some things aren't worth it. Plus, do you really want us to become a species that just sacrifices whatever it wants to achieve its ruthless goals of expansion by any means necessary? Sounds a bit scary to me :ashamed2:
1
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#11
(Original post by RockishBlue)
I don't like the word 'sacrifice'. Some things aren't worth it. Plus, do you really want us to become a species that just sacrifices whatever it wants to achieve its ruthless goals of expansion by any means necessary? Sounds a bit scary to me :ashamed2:
I think that sounds scary too.
I'm not saying sacrifice whatever it wants, but not hesitate to sacrifice when it significant progress is to be made. Plus I think the goals are not ruthless but necessary, because if an asteroid were to hit our planet then all biological life would die and everything would need to start over - hence destroying the miracle of such complex and rare life that we are. Backing up civilization by becoming multi-planetary is not ruthless but one of the number one priorities, in my opinion.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
username4241764
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 months ago
#12
(Original post by TheProctor)
I think that sounds scary too.
I'm not saying sacrifice whatever it wants, but not hesitate to sacrifice when it significant progress is to be made. Plus I think the goals are not ruthless but necessary, because if an asteroid were to hit our planet then all biological life would die and everything would need to start over - hence destroying the miracle of such complex and rare life that we are. Backing up civilization by becoming multi-planetary is not ruthless but one of the number one priorities, in my opinion.
I see what you're saying. I guess I can agree with some of it after all! It's just the way I first interpreted it sounded pretty bad
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 months ago
#13
(Original post by TheProctor)
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes, then humans must be the most crucial component of life to work towards such objective, no? Considering our technological advancements and future potential, intelligence and self-awareness, we have the environment at our fingertips which we can manipulate to create rockets and colonize other planets.

Even if some humans are evil and create chaos for biological life (a mass murdurer, say) they still carry with them the potential of self-actualization and contribution to his or her species, whereas 10, 100 or 1000 elephants do not. It just so happened that a particular set of events occurred to drive this person into such as delusional and flawed mindset (be it partially genetic, due to upbringing or bad life experience).

Though, of course, this does not mean eradication of species is okay, however the sacrifice of animal life for the betterment of the planet's apex species should not be argued with (in the case of animal testing for example). It is an investment into the progression of biological life as a whole. Consider what would happen if humans were to die out to a epidemic of some kind which could have been prevented through mass animal testing to find a cure. Even if life were to continue up until the expansion of the sun into a Red Giant, it would be unlikely that something as complex as humans would arise again.

Again I am not saying killing animals for any reason just because we're humans is okay, what I am saying is that the argument against animal testing is wrong in my opinion.

Yes we are animals just like elephants or turtles, intelligent apes even, but we are apes with rockets, cities and satellites who are striving to spread the biological seed into the universe.

Just wanted to know other people's opinion on this topic.
Society acts as if human life is worth more. From any species point of view, their own lives are worth more - it's true even within humans that one 'tribe' will protect their own regardless of the number of another group that have to die.

However, being the most technologically advanced life on Earth comes, IMO, with responsibilities. IMO, we should treat animals with respect, where they do not pose a risk to us. Animal cruelty is obscene.

Many religions claim that man is special, and above other species, e.g. we have a soul, and they don't. That's dangerous and egotistical. Another of the evils of many religions.
Last edited by RogerOxon; 5 months ago
1
reply
Kangaroo17
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 months ago
#14
(Original post by TheProctor)
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes, then humans must be the most crucial component of life to work towards such objective, no? Considering our technological advancements and future potential, intelligence and self-awareness, we have the environment at our fingertips which we can manipulate to create rockets and colonize other planets.

Even if some humans are evil and create chaos for biological life (a mass murdurer, say) they still carry with them the potential of self-actualization and contribution to his or her species, whereas 10, 100 or 1000 elephants do not. It just so happened that a particular set of events occurred to drive this person into such as delusional and flawed mindset (be it partially genetic, due to upbringing or bad life experience).

Though, of course, this does not mean eradication of species is okay, however the sacrifice of animal life for the betterment of the planet's apex species should not be argued with (in the case of animal testing for example). It is an investment into the progression of biological life as a whole. Consider what would happen if humans were to die out to a epidemic of some kind which could have been prevented through mass animal testing to find a cure. Even if life were to continue up until the expansion of the sun into a Red Giant, it would be unlikely that something as complex as humans would arise again.

Again I am not saying killing animals for any reason just because we're humans is okay, what I am saying is that the argument against animal testing is wrong in my opinion.

Yes we are animals just like elephants or turtles, intelligent apes even, but we are apes with rockets, cities and satellites who are striving to spread the biological seed into the universe.

Just wanted to know other people's opinion on this topic.
No matter how far we go, we are always in Nature's grip. i guess nature is really a umbrella term for animals/plants/energy, even the universe perhaps lol, but animals/plants are necessary. Essentially, isn't it near impossible to not contaminate other planets with bacteria? Or to eradicate weeds from a planet?
0
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#15
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Society acts as if human life is worth more. From any species point of view, their own lives are worth more - it's true even within humans that one 'tribe' will protect their own regardless of the number of another group that have to die.

However, being the most technologically advanced life on Earth comes, IMO, with responsibilities. IMO, we should treat animals with respect, where they do not pose a risk to us. Animal cruelty is obscene.

Many religions claim that man is special, and above other species, e.g. we have a soul, and they don't. That's dangerous and egotistical. Another of the evils of many religions.
I agree with the responsibilities that come with being the apex species and that animal cruelty is obscene, however JUSTIFIED animal suffering (for the purposes of testing and increasing the rate of progress of biological life - i.e. humans) is beneficial for all life. Though, of course, this is within reason - animals should not be killed needlessly.

I also agree that tribalism is one of humans survival instincts that allowed us to become what we are now, however humans have the capacity to treat all other people equally and understand that we can all cooperate, simply because many other humans are already able to do so, whereas animals (on a conscious and deliberate level) cannot.

In addition, I strongly believe that we should not look into religion's flawed and outdated claims for solutions, as they were not faced with the things we are faced with now as a society (our connectivity, our technology etc.).

I'm trying to say that humans are objectively more important in terms of ensuring Earth's biological life is able to thrive and not be confined to this planet, taking in to account our technological capabilities to fulfill such objective.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
forgotten_one
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 months ago
#16
I dont think humans are special just because we are complex beings with intelligence. Intelligence is a concept deviced by us humans to make ourselves feel special. Take octopuses for example, they are masters of camouflage. Star-nosed mole rats have incredible sense of smell so much that they do not need to see, they can see with their noses. We humans cant do that. So I think each creature is special in its own way and every creature deserves equal rights to live their life peacefully.
3
reply
TheProctor
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#17
(Original post by forgotten_one)
I dont think humans are special just because we are complex beings with intelligence. Intelligence is a concept deviced by us humans to make ourselves feel special. Take octopuses for example, they are masters of camouflage. Star-nosed mole rats have incredible sense of smell so much that they do not need to see, they can see with their noses. We humans cant do that. So I think each creature is special in its own way and every creature deserves equal rights to live their life peacefully.
I agree that animals have their own special characteristics, however no other animal on Earth has been able to manipulate their environement on a global scale and leave their home planet.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
yeetrdfmbr
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 months ago
#18
(Original post by TheProctor)
Objectively speaking, if the purpose (innate drive) of biological life is to reproduce and spread genes, then humans must be the most crucial component of life to work towards such objective, no? Considering our technological advancements and future potential, intelligence and self-awareness, we have the environment at our fingertips which we can manipulate to create rockets and colonize other planets.

Even if some humans are evil and create chaos for biological life (a mass murdurer, say) they still carry with them the potential of self-actualization and contribution to his or her species, whereas 10, 100 or 1000 elephants do not. It just so happened that a particular set of events occurred to drive this person into such as delusional and flawed mindset (be it partially genetic, due to upbringing or bad life experience).

Though, of course, this does not mean eradication of species is okay, however the sacrifice of animal life for the betterment of the planet's apex species should not be argued with (in the case of animal testing for example). It is an investment into the progression of biological life as a whole. Consider what would happen if humans were to die out to a epidemic of some kind which could have been prevented through mass animal testing to find a cure. Even if life were to continue up until the expansion of the sun into a Red Giant, it would be unlikely that something as complex as humans would arise again.

Again I am not saying killing animals for any reason just because we're humans is okay, what I am saying is that the argument against animal testing is wrong in my opinion.

Yes we are animals just like elephants or turtles, intelligent apes even, but we are apes with rockets, cities and satellites who are striving to spread the biological seed into the universe.

Just wanted to know other people's opinion on this topic.
Couldn't agree more, a human's life is much more important than any other animal.
0
reply
Mil99
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 months ago
#19
(Original post by TheProctor)
Yes it probably would, however why not maximize the opportunity us humans (complex biological life) already have to keep improving and becoming multi-planetary? That would allow us to truly have a backup for civilization and cherish this extremely rare occasion in the universe.
(Original post by TheProctor)
I'm not saying sacrifice whatever it wants, but not hesitate to sacrifice when it significant progress is to be made. Plus I think the goals are not ruthless but necessary, because if an asteroid were to hit our planet then all biological life would die and everything would need to start over - hence destroying the miracle of such complex and rare life that we are. Backing up civilization by becoming multi-planetary is not ruthless but one of the number one priorities, in my opinion.
You seem to be forming a circular argument :

[A] = Humans are superior than other species.
[B] = Why ?
[A] = Because we can manipulate our environment to achieve our aim or priority of saving our species.
[B] = And why is that your priority ? (I.e why is that your measure of a species' right for life)
[A] = Well, because we're superior.
0
reply
Yakib
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 months ago
#20
A human has a greater capacity to feel, think, experience and is generally more sentient. Therefore the human has more intrinsic moral value, this also applies to other animals aswell: a rat has more intrinsic moral value than a sheep because it is more sentient.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (44)
12.12%
Yes - a food allergy (39)
10.74%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (11)
3.03%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.48%
No (260)
71.63%

Watched Threads

View All