It seems backwards, to me, and I suspect it will be widely viewed as backwards in the distant future. Why a top-down approach? Countless other species are senti

It seems backwards, to me, and I suspect it will be widely viewed as backwards in the distant future. Why a top-down approach? Countless other species are sentient like orcas are, even if they may not be quite as cognitively adept as orcas at certain tasks or quite as fortunate to receive the same amkunt of marketing and PR. Why is this a default deny policy, with just a few exceptions for the tiny few species we feel hold the relative position of more valuable than other species? If orcas never existed, would they award their runner-up the get-out-of-kill-free card instead? I think it should be the inverse, with extremely rigorous criteria and years of deliberation over which species to exclude, rather than which ones to include. Don't get me wrong, I prefer one over none, but it feels a little bit like Saudi Arabia finally permitting women to drive and then showering them with praise for their admirable feminist ethos. I don't know when the day might come, but I think it's inevitable in the long run that this inverted approach will be what almost everyone does and almost everyone will be absolutely baffled and mortified that it used to be done any other way. I don't know whether or not any of us will live to see that day, but I'm prety confident it'll happen eventually.