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.

An interesting question. I believe the reason we value human life over other life on earth is simply because we are humans. It is instinctual for us to survive and procreate, therefore naturally we value human life above everything else. It is ingrained in our DNA to do anything to survive individually, and that seems to apply race-wide as well.

So the next question would be, why not hold animal life as sacred also? I would argue that we are moving in that direction. One hundred years ago organizations such as PETA did not exist and animal testing was a non-issue. We are becoming progressively more aware of animal rights.

I do not believe, however, that humans will ever hold animal life in the same regard that they hold their own life. Our ability to reason and uphold morality sets us apart from every other creature on the planet. If you place a starving dog and a well-fed dog next to each other and offer them a steak, the well-fed dog is not going to pass up the steak so that the starving dog can survive. Most humans would sacrafice in the same situation. We are on an entire different level intellectually and valuing our lives more makes sense to us.

Anyway, I would say in a nutshell that the reason human life is more valuable than animal life is the capacity to reason, something entirely unique to our race as far as we know.

Inside my tiny mind, it seems that humans are one of the least valuable organisms on the planet. With the exception of domesticated plants and animals and bread-eating ducks, the world around us does not depend on us for survival.

On that note, I guess our most notable value (if you can call it that) is out ability to destroy the earth like no other animal. Ground pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, deforestation, global warming, hunting to extinction, etc. Yeah...I would say we're pretty good at destroying the environment. I have yet to see any other species do as much destruction as we already have.

In response to the Original Post:

I read this response again more carefully and came across something that struck me. You said that humans do not show more of an affinity towards members of their own species than towards dogs/cats or other household pets. I don't think this could be further from the truth. You use the example of a beloved pet dying and the sadness derived from it but don't really give it a fair comparison under similar circumstances. What about when a mother loses a child? Uou don't believe the tragedy there outweighs the feeling the same woman would have if her pet dog died? What if kennel with 3000 cats exploded, you think that would get the same coverage as September 11th did or inspire the same emotion?

The emotional investment humans place in members of their own species outweighs what they place in pets and it isn't even close. I love my dog, she is a great companion and I will be very, very sad when she passes away. But the pain from that wouldn't even be comparable to one of my parents, brother, girlfriend, friend losing their life. I don't believe I am in the minority here, either.

Probably the most consideration in evaluating any organism is its relationships with other organisms. If you ignore that aspect of things this question is meaningless. Sure, humans are valuable from the perspective of humans. A serial killer might be valuable from the perspective of that serial killer. But I don't see why we should dismiss the evaluations of say, the families victimized by that killer.

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.

You missed the point completely.

You derive such emotional attachment with your mother, girlfriend, who ever because of your personal experiences with them not simply because they are human. It's obvious that your personal experience is obviously enhanced because you're both human, there are advantages to that.

Let's work with what you've stated thus far:
"I love my dog, she is a great companion and I will be very, very sad when she passes away."

Let me ask you something, every time someone dies, are you "very, very sad"? Probably not, otherwise you'd be one of hell of a depressed individual. See how it's so easy to compare something random to something you care about and win an argument? That's precisely what you did before.

In this argument, we are not talking about people who you've had an experience with and how they outweigh a random animal, we're talking about how you can derive the same value in an animal just as a human. The emotional investment in both can equate to the same value in your eyes.

September 11th was an extremist attack on a certain kind of people, 3000 cats dying after a kennel explosion is quite different. And yes it does get coverage, ever heard of the endangered species list? Wonder why Australia's citizens are protesting over Japan killing Whales? It's getting more coverage considering there's thousands of organizations and protests occurring every day.

I attempted to squelch an argument of emotional value by providing my point that we can derive similar emotional value from an animal just as a human. It depends on everyone's experience.

The prospect and potential of value is the same in my eyes, humans aren't inherently more valuable. I think it's harsh and egotistical to think so.

Why should humans deign to compare themselves to the other organisms on this planet? Ok, phytoplankton provide half of this planet's oxygen. It is probably more valuable to THIS planet right now. Its potential also ends there.

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.

The points you make are valid but the one thing I think you are still overlooking is the different level of emotion involved. Sure, there are endangered species and people are concerned about their welfare, etc. That gets coverage, but doesn't inspire the kind of widespread emotion that an event like September 11th does. I did not know a single person who died on September 11th, 2001, not one, yet it still is one of the most devastating days I can remember from my childhood. I do not believe I am alone in holding this opinion. If 300 0 golden retrievers were targeted and killed in a terrorist bombing it would not hold the same power. This is why when you say:

"Let me ask you something, every time someone dies, are you "very, very sad"? Probably not, otherwise you'd be one of hell of a depressed individual. See how it's so easy to compare something random to something you care about and win an argument? That's precisely what you did before."

Completely invalid. I do not know when everyone dies, there are too many people. I didn't know anyone involved in Sept. 11, however, and I was still very very sad about it. It isn't random, it is a good comparison. If someone told me that either my dog died or a random (healthy, not dying anyway) person somewhere in the world, I would have to choose my dog. Human life is MORE valuable than animal life.

Your point about it being personal experience that gives not just me but everyone a greater attachment to people than humans, is right. But look at the word you used, PERSONal. It is IMPOSSIBLE to connect on the same level with an animal that one can connect with a human. Humans are inherently more able to interact and create relationships with one another.

The reasons why humans are more valuable than every other species on the planet and should be treated that way are twofold: 1. We can reason. Humans are intelligent creatures who can use logic and think about consequences of actions. We have the ability to grow far beyond this one planet and colonize space, rendering the "most valuable organisms on the planet" question moot. 2. We can empathize. Humans can feel other humans, and animals, pain. They can feel sympathy and put themselves in another person's shoes. This is what gives humans desire to help the needy and protect endangered species. These two abilities are the reason why PERSONal experience can tie humans together much closer than animals.

The very idea that we are talking about whether animals should be given equal treatment as humans is a combination of these two traits. Hypothetically, if dinosaurs ruled the earth at the time of early human existence, do you think they would be on a site like outquib.com discussing whether or not those puny little mammals should be given equal treatment? Dinosaurs cannot reason nor empathize, neither can any other creature on the planet. Humans are the sole proprietors of this ability.

Should we take care of animals? Yes. Are we on the same level as them? No way. We will share this earth with them for another few hundred years at most and then we'll, for the most part, be gone. Our potential as a species is greater than this planet can contain. They can have the earth back...we'll leave...it'll probably benefit them anyway.

Again, you're framing what is "valuable" in your own terms. What inherent value is there in exploring or colonizing space? For that matter, what planets have we saved to date? We're quickly exterminating life on our current home, and that doesn't merit us anything but contempt. 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. For 200,000 years humans engaged in these same relationships. Now we have a culture of death, having killed 98% of the planet's old-growth forests (replacing them with unsustainable tree plantations), eliminated 90% of the large fish in the oceans in the last 50 years alone, and are heating up the planet's atmosphere at a worrying pace (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis). All of this for MySpace, Big Macs, and air conditioning.

"Again, you're framing what is "valuable" in your own terms."

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.