Are humans the most valuable organisms on the planet?

I am enjoying this debate as well.

However before we go on, I think we should define what we mean by valuable. I think there has been a lot of confusion about what we mean by valuable. Are we wondering which organism is better equipped to survive on the planet, which organism is the most capable to the continuation of life after the Earth's destruction, which organism is the essential for life on Earth, etc.

Perhaps, I simply do not understand what we mean by most valuable, but if possible, we need to get more specific because I personally do not believe that their is one organism that exceeds in all areas.

This is a point that has been made before, but I think it is important enough to be repeated. Crucial to this debate is the definition of the word "valuable." We all have a pretty good idea of what "valuable" means. Gold is valuable. Friendship is valuable. Shelter is valuable. The obvious question is "valuable to what?" And, the assumed answer is "valuable to a people." The only meaningful way to judge some object's value, especially if no "to what" is specified, is in its relationship to people. With this view of the posed question, there is no question that human beings are the most valuable organisms. Wouldn't you say that a situation where you or everyone you cared about did not exist would be a situation of very little value to you?

At this point you may be thinking that I am making this perhaps quite complex or deep issue too lightly by making it a matter of semantics. Perhaps that is the case, but my argument implies a more fundamental idea, that human beings are the most important organisms on the planet. And, that is the question being asked here. Certainly we are not going judge the value of human beings or anything else to the rock that we live on or to the bacteria in the soil. We could, however, judge the value of human beings to some other animal species. But now, for which species should we judge the value of things to: the clear answer is the most important species. And that species is homo sapiens. It perhaps reasonable to say that there is something most important to a great number of animal species. The clear answer to this response would be some species that can photosynthesize. But which species of plant is the most important? Scientists believe that ancient bacteria are responsible for the current oxygen-rich atmosphere, but which species of bacteria are most responsible? Each single species is only responsible for a small part of the current life-supporting environment of the earth. With, this sum set of conditions, and the kind of philosophy that we all live our lives with, it can only be concluded that human beings are the most important and thus most valuable species.

'The red sun of Desire and Decision, the two things one requires to make a live world, rose higher and higher...whiles upon a succession of balconies, a succession of libertines, sparkling glass in hand, toasted the bliss of Past and future nights'

'To see what the eye has never seen, hear what the ear has never heard!'---Tertullian the Antinomian

Genesis is a fine enough confutation of the really ludicrous proposition which holds that Man and Beast are one and the same, but only if it is read as an Allegory of Sense-Perception rather than an Allegory of Transgression.

One has to learn to appreciate the Fruit of Knowledge not as an Ethical Artifact (alongside Augustine and Aquinas, just to keep with the A's), but as a Sensuous one. The subtil serpent (which is not Satan, but Eve's own Daemon) enjoins Eve to focus on the texture, color, and the fragrance of the Fruit of Perception, to consummate the Will to Godhead then and there: to be Overcome by (now synesthetically) the Fumes of that Fruit. Man does not outdo Beast because He thinks; he outdoes Beast because he Feels.

Consciousness of Time, consciousness of Image, consciousness of the 'Screen which is truth.' Human beings are both their own Spectators and their own Mirrors (the consciousness of one's own reflection, of one's 'his own,' is Lacan's primary distinction between human infants and those of apes).

All of those harms we have done to the planet were necessary to our evolution as a species, in my opinion. We were completely unaware when the majority of the damage was done (we were killing the planet at a much faster rate in the 50's than we are now) and will take steps to temper that destruction.

The earth will be important to humans for another 100-200 years (arbitrary guess) until we become able to leave it. Humankind is bigger than this one planet, it is just our current home. We should take care of it just as one would take care of an apartment they are staying in, but our potential is much greater than this one rock.

No matter what happens our stay on this planet is limited. Eventually it will hurl into the sun and long before that it will become unbearable to live on, we will need to have a mass exodus at some point.

I guess what I am saying is that in my humble opinion humans are not only the most valuable organisms on the planet....they are far more valuable than the planet itself. Is this arrogant? Probably. I don't see any other animals landing on the moon (unless we blast them there :) )

i can comfortably say this because we cause the most harm to the planet of all of the organisms, thus negating any value we might actually have.

For many of us, we feel as though all humans are created equally but often at times people, in my opinion, have a double standard for the philosophy that it does not apply to anything outside the human race. I take a much broader stance on the philosophy, that humans are not necessarily anything more divine or valuable than any other organism.

I came across this argument while debating with a pro-life advocate, just for the sake of doing so, and my question was, if you're pro-life, why do you feel it's okay to kill animals? And the response was that humans are regarded differently, they are inherently more valuable. This isn't an argument on pro-life, so lets not make it one. Back to the point...

What's your position? What makes humans more valuable just because we have thumbs and better critical thinking skills? Humans are capable of showing the same and sometimes even more emotion for a pet that has passed away. So at least we can't say that we have a striking affinity for our own race more than any other species, that's simply not true. So without the emotional tid bit out of the way, what's so compelling about us that makes us "valuable." We eat, excrete, breathe, have a way of communicating like any other organism. You could argue we're at the top of the food chain and that alone makes us valuable, well I'll tell you what, the dinosaurs were at the top too and they mysteriously fell off the chain, where was natural selection to recognize their value or superiority?

I personally define valuable as being linked with the capacity to do good. While “good” may be seen as arbitrary, I believe it involves being morally upright (which can also be left to interpretation) and being capable of benefiting the planet.

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.

At the moment, we're the least valuable, in that we take immensely from the planet without giving back to it. Humans are capable of giving back to the planet more than what we take, and we took this path for most of our history. But for the moment we're simply killing the planet, which is of no value to anyone.

Well, I think the problem lies in the fact that judging value is subjective. It really depends on what one considers to be "valuable"

The way I read the question it asks which organism is the most valuable overall. It says on the planet but that can be ignored because the only organisms we know of are on this planet. It seems like some people in this post are taking valuable to mean how much they help the other organisms and the planet. That is certainly one interpretation. I was taking it to mean which race has the most potential to do great and important things.

I really think it comes down to what one thinks is valuable. When arguments come down to that it is pretty much impossible to reach an agreement (i.e. abortion).

Very good post. I think that we can all agree that due to the subjective nature of the word "valuable" it is nearly impossible to reach a consensus on this debate. Value is relative, it depends entirely on eye of the beholder.