Is every species of living thing on the planet equally deserving of protection?
I don't think you're going to find too much sympathy for such an extreme position. For one thing, you can't give rights to dinner. I can foresee a time when some of the higher primates, and perhaps some cetaceans, may be afforded some of the respect for life and liberty now enjoyed exclusively by humans, but even that's a ways off.
There is a related issue, however, that is worthy of debate: is every species worthy of preservation? Much more fodder there,
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The perspective that whales, dolphins, and other such marine mammals should be afforded "human rights" has surfaced again.
I thought I'd revisit a post I wrote about this several months ago, from the archives, when this first hit the news after the AAAS conference in San Diego. So here's a modified…
A beautiful artistic reconstruction of Indohyus by Carl Buell.
The study of the origin of whales has undergone so much change during my own lifetime that it's sometimes hard to keep up. When I was very young, Basilosaurus was the fossil whale representative, but being that it was already a…
Remember Dario Ringach?
He's the scientist who has endured a prolonged campaign of harassment because of his animal research. I first heard of him in 2006, when, after a campaign of threatening phone calls, people frightening his children, and demonstrations in front of his home, gave up doing…
.... Continued ....
So, what rights to what animals get?
When Charlton Heston's character in Planet of the Apes came across that great edifice of Western Civilization and realized that the old Orangutan was right ... humans are fundamentally destructive of themselves and their near relatives ... he…
Hi, I'm new here, so please forgive my style until I get a feel of the culture here.
I'd like to see you define the context of "giving rights" to anybody. I'm not a creationist by any means, but I always find it ironic hearing scientists talking about saving the oceans, the cradle of life, endangered species, etc. Remember, there is no teleology in science (is there?). All this "deserving protection" talk is irrational emotion, just like belief if God. Just look at our Asteroid history and how it shaped what we see today. The protection of a species seems to be defined by its ability to survive in the environment (what a newsflash). So, it's been like that for millions of years, why does it have to be different now? Because we're intelligent and we're in control? So? We continue to pollute the environment only to give rise to variations that survive the new conditions. We don't like the future state simply because we're the product of what we're in today (anthropic bias??). We think our descendants will value what we do today. It seems we have this almost mystical belief that WE, all of a sudden, have this responsibility to save and protect stuff. On what grounds, specifically?
So, my point is that in order to assign values that will justify protection or rights of anything, you need to define context. I can see teleology confined to our life times in a sense that our children won't have time to adjust to the rapid changes that we introduce, and it goes against our emotion, but given a bigger context, why even that is of any importance?
Any *logical* retorts would be greatly appriciated!
Thanks,
Pavel.
I don't think you're going to find too much sympathy for such an extreme position.
Me too.
I can foresee a time when some of the higher primates, and perhaps some cetaceans, may be afforded some of the respect for life and liberty now enjoyed exclusively by humans, but even that's a ways off.
Don't look behind you, monkey boy:
Chimps and apes to get same rights as humans
All the equal rights movement needs is a few catchy slogans. Here's my contributions:
Plants are people too
Give cows the vote
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others*
* I stole this one from someone else. I hope no one notices.