Are humans the most valuable organisms on the planet?

"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."

I don't understand this comment. The question is if we are the most valuable organisms ON the planet, not FOR the planet. Your argument seems to be that just because we don't improve the earth (at this present time) we are not valuable. I disagree. To use an analogy; if I drank chlorine it certainly would not be the most valuable thing TO me in my system, but it doesn't negate the value that chlorine has. Basically, my argument is that just because we aren't necessarily valuable TO the planet doesn't mean we aren't valuable organisms.

I really think we should change this question entirely because it seems to be throwing people off. The "on the planet" attachment at the end seems to be leading everyone to answer from an environmental perspective. The same question that is being asked could instead by phrased "Are humans the most valuable organisms?" It is the exact same question but it doesn't lead one towards a response dealing with earth.

I'd be interested in seeing people respond to that.

i'm surprised that no one has mentioned alan weisman's book "the world without us" yet. for those who are unfamiliar, the author explores what the world would be like if humans were to just disappear from the planet. he discusses how (hypothetically) the rest of the world (everything from plants to animals to technology remnants) would live without humans anymore.

now i wish i could tell you what he said about the impact of humans on the earth... but i only got to read the first chapter by the time i had to return the book to the library. hmph.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Ok, this post I like a lot more. You made some valid points.

First of all let me get this out of the way:
YOU: "Who really cares if you can land on the moon? Only humans do."
ME: "What else, that we know of, even has the capacity to care about us landing on the moon?"
YOU: "So are you trying to tell me that the capacity of the human mind/intelligence, is way more valuable and impressive then a plants ability to photosynthesize, a cheetahs ability to run...."

In that particular comment I wasn't saying that, I was just pointing out that you saying that only humans care about humans landing on the moon was obvious because only humans have the capacity to care. As far as we know, no other organisms CAN care. Dogs and mice have no clue we landed on the moon. I was just pointing that out.

But on to what you are saying about whether or not our intelligence is more valuable than the host of examples of abilities other creatures have, I would say that it depends on your definition of valuable. There is a reason why humans have risen to the top of the food chain (a place we weren't always). From 5 million years ago all the way until about 100,000 years ago (estimated numbers, but they are close) the human race was primarily a scavenger race, similar to a vulture. When a big animal would kill a small animal we would steal its carcass after the bigger animal was done with it. Humans slowly, around this time, began to expand their knowledge of toolmaking and started doing a lot of the hunting and gathering on their own. We then about 6-8 thousand years ago (whenever you want to place it) had the Neolithic revolution and began farming. This lasted until about 1800 with the industrial revolution which spurred a rapid chain of events; increasing our technological capability many times over. We no longer have to steal carcasses from bigger animals.

What is the point of all of this? I'm just demonstrating what our intelligence has been capable of. We weren't handed our position as the most powerful race on the earth, we attained it.

The question, however, is if our intelligence is more valuable than the abilities of all of the other creatures. If the question is most valuable for survival, then yes. Most valuable to the PLANET? No, it would probably win the award for most likely to destroy the planet. Neither of these was the question. The original question of the thread asked if humans were the most valuable organisms ON the planet. Any my answer remains the same. Our intelligence is so great that we not only have the abiliity to achieve all the technological advances we have on this planet, but we WILL have the ability to leave and colonize space. Who knows, maybe we will save one thousand other planets from their destruction by inventing a planet-saving chemical? It is hypothetical, and who knows if it could ever really happen, but the point is that it has the POTENTIAL to happen, and you can't say the same about any other organism on the planet. A fox, clever as he/she may be, is not going to leave earth and save planets from destruction (despite what Star Fox might tell you :) )

Maybe it is the human ego, but I really believe that we should take ourselves as far as we can go. I've never once said we should purposefully hurt animals or the planet to achieve our ends, but I do believe that as humans we should look at ourselves as having the potential to outgrow this planet and achieve more. Maybe not in 100-200 years, but within a thousand we will have colonized other regions in space. The question will then become not whether we are the most valuable organisms on the planet but rather the most valuable in the universe.

P.S. I take back what I said about people like you holding up the human race, I was just responding harshly to as post that I took as an attack. No hard feelings, I enjoy this debate.

"People like you hold back the progression of the human race."

I disagree. Just because I care about other species except my own does not mean I am holding back the human race. Like others, I am excited and interested in new technology. As a consumer, I am constantly purchasing new mad-made invention. As an individual, I amazed at the things we accomplish. However, I feel that our progression does not make us any more valuable than any other organism.

"What else, that we know of, even has the capacity to care about us landing on the moon? Do you read what you write?"

So are you trying to tell me that the capacity of the human mind/intelligence, is way more valuable and impressive then a plants ability to photosynthesize, a cheetahs ability to run extremely fast, or a bears ability to hibernate up to 100 days. The human race is no better than any other organism on this planet, like each organism we have our own trait that we believe is more superior to the other. Our intelligence is necessary for our survival just as a camels ability to go without water for periods of 8-10 days. We find our intelligence the most valuable asset because we are the judge. If you asked a bird what the most valuable asset was, he would say his ability to fly and migrate. And if value is measured in success, other organisms have been more successful than us. Bacteria have been around since the Earth's inception, living in places uninhabitable by humans. The oldest Cockroach is over 300 million years old.

The human ego "is why we value ourselves more than other human beings, and that is why we declare that the human being is the dictator of the world, a power given by a God or our own Intelligence. In the end, we are "programmed" to take special interest in our own pleasure and/or survival."