What is wrong with equating the importance of humans with other non-human beings?

This idea was researched, and written about by a man who received death threats after presenting this topic. So I realize that many people equate animal beings/ the environment with trash. I think some people don't quite have the thinking capacity to consider that our ecosystem is how we are kept alive. Maybe things should not always be done in the interest of human beings. I'm not criticizing anyone, just suggesting that maybe people should rethink the importance of things that are constantly underestimated.

People are higher level life forms at the very least, and non-atheists consider the value of a soul to be more important.
I agree with you. I don't see anything wrong with humans bringing their egos down a notch and considering that they are not the only intelligent, important things existing on this planet.

I used to do a lesson with elementary children where each child would choose a living thing to be. We then passed around yarn showing how each creature/plant/bacteria/etc. was connected to one another. We chose one/two living things to be removed from our environment, and you could see how the web came undone. Amazing the connections the children made during the activity that many adults obviously can not make.
It's simply impossible to draw equivalences between humans and animals (or any other kind of living thing) - they're fundamentally different. E.g., it's considered a basic right in this country that you be allowed to speak your opinion freely. Well and good. What does this mean for dogs? Absolutely nothing. The concept of "freedom of speech" simply does not apply to dogs, because dogs aren't capable of expressing themselves in anything other than the most rudimentary ways.

So since we're clear that there's qualitative differences between humans and other creatures, the question of equating their importance now becomes one of ignoring those differences.

People SHOULD rethink the importance of things that are constantly underestimated, but it's a great error to then turn around and overestimate their value.
It's a lovely idea, and should certainly be encouraged.

however, I rememberwatching a widlife programme years ago, about one of the great eagles, like a Harpy or Crowned. After the standard pretty shots, they went and talked to some local villagers, and asked them what they thought of this bird. the standard response was "Great. One of them will feed my family for a week".

I don't think any of us would sacrifice our life, or our family (or our standard of living?) for an animal or species. It's about getting the balance right.
i agree, this is why i dont support farm industries and have chosen to be vegetarian, i dont think its humane how they treat livestock animals. everything people do is done for the good of their own kind but whenever someone mentions equality for other beings people get all angry about it, because many people are selfish or just dont care.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:

More Questions and Answers:
  • How can I explain solar power to 8 year olds?
  • Explain about Belarusian Chernobyl Tragedy ?
  • what is the process by which plants produce their own food?
  • Every year 100,000,000 shark's die, do you think in the next 15 years some of the species will go extinct?
  • What are the human impacts on tigers n aboitic factors ?!?
  • Describe 2 or more event which might happen on Earth after a sunspot produces a solar flare.Help,Please?
  • What animal has the same habitat as a River Otter?
  • Is global warming caused by nature, not man?
  • Global Warming idea?