http://www.outquib.com/debates/view/are-humans-the-most-valuable-organisms-on-the-planet A discussion on the value of humans over all other organisms. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:03:06 GMT Humans Value Earth http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/740
Reply to post ]]> Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:17:45 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/740 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/702
Reply to post ]]> Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:54:14 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/702 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/500 But I wonder, is it possible to place a value on a life form based on it's importance to the over all system? For instance, if you remove say the Dodo bird from an ecosystem, how many other species will be affected? It turns out that this question is incredibly difficult to answer until the said species has been removed. No one expected the calvaria tree to become extinct after the Dodo, but it turned out that the tree needed the bird to help break down the out shell of the seed pods so they could sprout.
Now I don't want to stray too far from the topic, but this illustrates the complexity of life and to think that there are organism of higher or lower value requires an understanding of the global ecosystem we do not yet have.
Now my argument is predicated on using the value system I set forth, it does not hold if, for instance you use "the ability to do good" as others have suggested.


Perhaps we should refine the question before debating an answer?

Thank you, I look forward to any responses.

Reply to post ]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:17:24 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/500 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/371
Trying to assign value to a species depends on the background you are looking at. If we're looking at assimilating the species surroundings to fit their lives, humans win.

But, honestly, I thrill at the sight of nature taking back what was once hers. There's a special coming up on the History Channel of life after humans. They look at villages surrounding Chernobyl which have been abandoned for over twenty years and are veritably teeming with life. There are books out now about how life will go on after we disappear.

And, depressing as it is, it excites me.

Reply to post ]]> Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:57:49 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/371 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/345
Disclaimers aside, I think we can all agree that humans are the only beings with the full capacity to act based on moral judgment. If we are given a meal, and our hungry friend is not, we are inclined to share because we have a conscience that gives us the idea to do so.

Now beyond a mother bringing food for her children, which biologists know is more a biological drive than a conscientious act, this concept of principles guiding actions does not play out in animals or in other organisms. Dogs, while commended for being loyal, do not have moral understanding. They, like other animals, can kill their prey without qualms.

Humans kill their prey and understand the implications. They pollute the environment and understand the harm they are inflicting. And they attempt to make amends for their actions. We have PETA; we have Greenpeace.

We may not be wonderful, but we have the morality to realize our shortcomings. We have the capacity to strive to fix our faults. We lock athletes away for killing their dogs, and hand out prizes to politicians who preach energy conservation.

Someone mentioned that plants are wonderful because of photosynthesis. I agree. Photosynthesis is necessary to our life on Earth. But there is a difference between having purpose and having value. Plants are purposeful, but their value is not par to the value that humans have. Humans can care for these plants, and grow more of them to benefit the Earth. Plants cannot plant humans.

We are a terrible race: we kill our brothers, we are wasteful, and we are arrogant.
But we are also a great race. Our capabilities are what render us valuable.

We can take care of the planet like no other organism can.


Reply to post ]]> Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:27:43 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/345 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/332
You are accusing me of the exact same thing that you are doing. What does value have anything to do with what we do to the planet? The question has absolutely NOTHING to do with interaction with the planet...that is of course unless that is how you define valuable.

"For that matter, what planets have we saved to date?"

Read my post, I admit multiple times that right now we cause more harm than good to this planet but that we have the POTENTIAL to save many planets in the future. NASA currently has a team working on a plan to intercept any asteroids that may hit the planet in the not-so-distant future...what I am saying isn't all science fiction. This is real stuff, and humans are the only organisms on the planet who can do anything about it.

"What inherent value is there in exploring or colonizing space...We're quickly exterminating life on our current home, and that doesn't merit us anything but contempt"

You are basing the definition of value entirely on our effect on the planet. That is it. I am trying to look at it in a bigger picture, the human race isn't confined to this one planet. We have already demonstrated that we can leave. Maybe we'll destroy this one but save many more. Wouldn't that make us valuable? I guess the definition of value varies, but if we save 1000 inhabited planets from asteroids I think most would agree we did a good thing.

"Most organisms on this planet are quite happy to engage with one another in relationships that are sustainable, and were sustainable for millions of years."

... Most organisms just kill each other and eat each other. Or infect and kill each other. I don't understand what this means, animals kill each other the same way humans do...humans are just much more effective.

I don't understand the self-hating culture that seems to be the new fad among (in particular) Americans. We were killing the planet much more in 1950 than we are now. Humans are gaining awareness of the importance to protect the planet. People don't have an SUV because they enjoy polluting, they have one because it is convenient. We are now, so I hear, starting to create hybrid-SUVs and other vehicles that will help reduce the negative effect we have on the planet. We are working towards helping save this planet and have the potential to save many others. Dogs aren't trying to save the planet. Neither are birds or the AIDS virus.

Another question I think is pertinent to this discussion is how valuable is earth? Earth will be destroyed, it is a matter of when not if. We all know it is going to hurl off into the sun eventually, and likely find a different way to die long before it does that. IF humans find a way to not kill themselves off, wouldn't the simple fact that we have a much much longer life span than this planet lead you to believe that we are meant for bigger and better things? There is no way we will stay on this one planet. Hopefully by that time humans will have matured as a race and we will benefit the universe, unlike what we have done so far with this planet.

Reply to post ]]> Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:34:42 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/332 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/331
Reply to post ]]> Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:45:56 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/331 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/330
As humans we have the potential to one day leave this planet and explore many others (I would argue that the question of our space exploration is when, not if). Phytoplankton, as well as every other organism on earth, is not going to do this unless humans take them along. The future will consist of humans affecting many, many more planets and perhaps entire solar systems--possibly the whole universe. The possibilites for the human race overshadow those of every other on this planet and that is why we are much more valuable than they are.

I like what a poster before me said: humans can stop an asteroid from completely destroying the earth, no other species can do that. I think this is just one example of what we can do as a race. If we colonize new planets that contain their own species similar to our animals, we could stop asteroids from hitting and destroying them. Maybe one day we'll lead peace negotiations between two intelligent species in their intergalactic war--literally anything you can imagine has the potential to happen. Are humans the most valuable to THIS planet at THIS instant? No. Could we, in the long run, be the most valuable to this and many more planets? Only time can tell, but we are the only ones with potential to do so.

Reply to post ]]> Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:00:28 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/330 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/329
Salal is valuable from the perspective of salal, salmon are important from the perspective of salmon, etc. So even if you choose not to compare these species against one another (which turns the question into an absurdity) these species are still of equal value to human beings.

Whereas if we adopt a comparative perspective, something like phytoplankton (which provides half of the planet's oxygen) is immensely valuable to the planet and its inhabitants.

Reply to post ]]> Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:20:59 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/329 http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/328
Reply to post ]]> Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:00:30 GMT http://www.outquib.com/debates/posts/view/328