Heads up - it's considered poor form to edit your previous reply like this rather than responding directly to comment below. That said, are you claiming that l

Heads up - it's considered poor form to edit your previous reply like this rather than responding directly to comment below. That said, are you claiming that life only has value if there exists some "ecological necessity" for it? Because I just don't see enough consistency in any definition of "ecological necessity" to make it a meaningful term. Ecology has shifted dramatically throughout earth's history - any species you could have called "ecological necessary" in the jurassic era doesn't seem so necessary in the long-run judging by the multitude of life that continued after extinction events.