3 ms·

> Weren't we talking about most important animal? You’re right. I slipped into talking about species on the whole, my bad. That said, I think it’s really impo

> Weren't we talking about most important animal? You’re right. I slipped into talking about species on the whole, my bad. That said, I think it’s really important to clarify what we mean by important. Do we mean powerful, impactful? Or do we mean the lives of the individuals of that species are more valuable? Back to powerful/impactful, if we’re talking about purely animals, then I’d look to pollinators. Would you argue that humans are more important to the functioning of the world than pollinators? > But when it comes to most important, things a million different species can do are much less important. Again, what do we mean by important? Power? > Let alone the fact that we can produce oxygen and decay organic matter. If we were to rely purely on humanity’s ability to produce oxygen and decay organic matter, the majority of life on Earth, humans included, would quickly die and then pile up, undecaying. There’s no comparison between our ability and the ability of the species that are specialized for this. It’s like comparing Einstein’s and a crow’s ability to flesh out physics. Sure, the crow might be able to solve some physics-based puzzles, but it’s on a very basic level. > As for everything else, I don't feel like you're even trying to understand my argument. But if you're that confused it's only going to be a waste of time for me to go on. I admittedly made some assumptions about your argument, and have been arguing against those assumptions. This is because I’m genuinely unclear on your argument. If you can clarify a couple things: 1) What exactly do we mean by important? 2) What are the boundaries of ability by which we can define humans as interchangeable, but humans and nonhuman animals as not, that are not rationalized after the fact? If we establish these things I think we can make some progress instead of talking past each other.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> If we were to rely purely on humanity’s ability to produce oxygen and decay organic matter But again this is about a single species. If you remove one random type of algae or plant it's not going to make a huge difference. > 1) What exactly do we mean by important? The impact they have, the breadth of skills, the monuments and constructs and art, the potential for what they can do in the future. Including spreading life through the solar system eventually, or things like that. I might be missing some parts, it's late. > 2) What are the boundaries of ability by which we can define humans as interchangeable, but humans and nonhuman animals as not, that are not rationalized after the fact? I don't want to double down on this too hard. I just think most humans are in a pretty narrow band and this band is pretty far away from any other species.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  > But again this is about a single species. If you remove one random type of algae or plant it's not going to make a huge difference. Prochlorococcus single-handedly produces 20% of all oxygen on Earth.[1] > The impact they have, the breadth of skills, the monuments and constructs and art, the potential for what they can do in the future. Including spreading life through the solar system eventually, or things like that. I might be missing some parts, it's late. No, I mean what do you mean by important, fundamentally. Is this a judgement of the objective value of the lives of the individuals of that species? Is it just an assessment of their power? Is it putting arbitrary characteristics that species happens to posses on a pedestal while simultaneously and just as arbitrarily devaluing the unique characteristics of all other species? Are we starting from the bias that humans are more "important" (again, still unclear what that actually means) than all others, then working backwards and highlighting all the human characteristics as being evidence of that importance after the fact? If a species with giant claws ruled the world, do you think they might wax poetic about the great importance of giant claws, and how this is the one true metric by which the value of a life can be measured? Are giant claws, ability to produce art, or any other specific characteristic or capability in any way relevant to the question of whether or not a life has value? > I don't want to double down on this too hard. I just think most humans are in a pretty narrow band and this band is pretty far away from any other species. Well we're going to have to define the boundaries of this band, otherwise it doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete and seems more like circular reasoning that the boundaries of this band are those that exist within humans and therefore those humans are important because they exist within the boundaries of that band. [1] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html

Dylan16807 4y ago

> If we were to rely purely on humanity’s ability to produce oxygen and decay organic matter But again this is about a single species. If you remove one random type of algae or plant it's not going to make a huge difference. > 1) What exactly do we mean by important? The impact they have, the breadth of skills, the monuments and constructs and art, the potential for what they can do in the future. Including spreading life through the solar system eventually, or things like that. I might be missing some parts, it's late. > 2) What are the boundaries of ability by which we can define humans as interchangeable, but humans and nonhuman animals as not, that are not rationalized after the fact? I don't want to double down on this too hard. I just think most humans are in a pretty narrow band and this band is pretty far away from any other species.

virgildotcodes 4y ago
> But again this is about a single species. If you remove one random type of algae or plant it's not going to make a huge difference. Prochlorococcus single-handedly produces 20% of all oxygen on Earth.[1] > The impact they have, the breadth of skills, the monuments and constructs and art, the potential for what they can do in the future. Including spreading life through the solar system eventually, or things like that. I might be missing some parts, it's late. No, I mean what do you mean by important, fundamentally. Is this a judgement of the objective value of the lives of the individuals of that species? Is it just an assessment of their power? Is it putting arbitrary characteristics that species happens to posses on a pedestal while simultaneously and just as arbitrarily devaluing the unique characteristics of all other species? Are we starting from the bias that humans are more "important" (again, still unclear what that actually means) than all others, then working backwards and highlighting all the human characteristics as being evidence of that importance after the fact? If a species with giant claws ruled the world, do you think they might wax poetic about the great importance of giant claws, and how this is the one true metric by which the value of a life can be measured? Are giant claws, ability to produce art, or any other specific characteristic or capability in any way relevant to the question of whether or not a life has value? > I don't want to double down on this too hard. I just think most humans are in a pretty narrow band and this band is pretty far away from any other species. Well we're going to have to define the boundaries of this band, otherwise it doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete and seems more like circular reasoning that the boundaries of this band are those that exist within humans and therefore those humans are important because they exist within the boundaries of that band. [1] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html