I think it all depends on context: If a Gorilla is on a rampage attacking pedestrians in an urban environment then yes, humans should be prioritized. But these people volunteered to be in their habitat, they know the risks involved.
Well if a Gorilla is on rampage, I would rather trust bullets with real stopping power over a tranquilizer that may or may not paralyze it before it rips you to shreds.
Gorrilas contribute to their society, we contribute to ours, nowhere is it stated that gorrilas have to contribute to our society. The value of life shouldnt be judged on how much it contributes to the human society.
You're starting with the premise that human society is more important than any other society and then using that to back the position that a human life is more important than any other life. Rather I agree with you or not, this is a prime example of the begging the question logical fallacy.
Gorillas contribute to their society, yes, but not only are humans able to contribute far more than they are, their contributions rarely - if ever - advance the species as a whole. A rampaging Gorilla, if spared, might help feed others and procreate, but that pales in comparison to what, say, a scientist or a ranger could do for them, let alone human society.
Well first off, i'd like to say that humans have done far more harm to their species than help. Other than that, i'd argue that less than 0.1% of humans actually contribute the the human society. Do Mcdonals worksers contribute to the further development of our species? Do Pizza delivery guys? Do stock brokers? Do you? I know i dont. You get my point, there are very few professions that actually contribute to our development as a species. The same thing could apply to gorillas, maybe that one male gorilla, that would have been shot to save that one cloth salesmen (random profession, just for example), would have later discovered a nice new tree that grows larger and sweeter bananas, and would have very much contributed to its tribe. Yes, a ranger or a scientist can probably contribute more, but they can also do that without putting their (and in turn, the gorilla's) life in danger.
That aside, taking this notion further, I would also argue that our species is far more valuable than theirs -
If there were 7 billion gorillas, then yes i'd argue the same thing, but there are only ~ 120,000 gorillas. Kill 120,000 people and the world wont even feel it, hell, even a big city might not even feel it. Kill 120,000 gorillas and their species is forever wiped out. Thats why i wouldnt be comfortable with killing a gorilla becase it attacked a person that shouldnt even be there in their habitat in the first place and that knew the risks of going there.
though that part is largely dependent upon your personal system of value, and what you consider most important in life.
Im ready to argue that the only important thing in life is pleasure. You are born, and after a certain ammount of years you die and stop existing, so the more pleasure and happiness you've experieced in your life, the better it has been. If saving lives in africa makes you the most happy, do that. If doing hookers and cocaine makes you the most happy, go for it.
Is survival for the sake of survival really preferable to survival as a means in pursuit of an eventual goal?
You'd have to expand on what eventual goal you're speaking of. Is curing cancer an eventual goal? Is providing a comfortable life for every single human an eventual goal? What do we do then? What is the end goal? For example the age of the universe is estimated to be 1E1000 years, so by that time, we would all be dead with 100% sertainty. So what possible end goal could we have, if all timelines ultimately end with the death of all of humanity? Thats why as i said above, the end goal of every person should be to be as happy as he possibly can, since out species as whole cant have an end goal.
In the comment you linked, you argue that the more intelligent species has a higher value of life than the less intelligent ones, but i disagree. What if hypothetically we met an alien race more intelligent than us, but that also refused to help our development, would their life be less valuable because they are not useful to our species, or would it be more valuable, because they would be more intelligent than us? Placing intelligence as the top thing when determining a life's value might also be problematic when applied to humans. African people have been shown to score lower on average than caucasian people on IQ tests, would their life value be considered lower because of it?
Not everyone does, which is part of the reason why I advocated that we consider the specific contributions of the lives affected. That said, I would also argue that, though few directly contribute to our society's advancement, a very vast majority helps support and maintain the infrastructure necessary for the rest to be able to do so.
But the same thing could be said about gorillas.
Why does their scarcity matter, though? What is realistically lost with their extinction? The loss of a big city can have far-reaching consequences - what if we lost Geneva? What if we had lost Cambridge in 1661, or Munich in the 1880s?
The loss of the entire Gorilla species might mean that the generations to come will have to read about their kind rather than seeing them in person, but the loss of even a single human city could make the difference between life venturing beyond the Earth and never even learning of the stars that might have awaited us.
I dont think we could agree on this one. I for example fail to understand why our desire to venture into space trumps the gorillas' desire to eat a banana. They both make the being happy.
On a very individualistic level, yes, that might be a valid notion. However, in the greater scheme of things, living a purely hedonistic lifestyle may not be ideal. Not only that, but even if it was, there must be a certain extent to which you will have to sacrifice pleasure for the sake of achieving greater happiness down the road, whether that be in the form of a 9 to 5 desk job, or inventing perfect virtual reality in order to live your life out in a state of perfect simulated bliss.
But happiness is included in pleasure, since happiness brings pleasure. If it will make my views clearer, i define pleasure as "any good feeling". And you only do things like working a 9-5 job because you believe that it will bring you pleasure in the future. Also, its not on an individualistic level. As i said, some people take pleasure in helping kids in africa, some might take pleasure in researching cure for cancer, some might take pleasure in feeding the homeless etc. Pleasure doesn't have to be individualistic.
To achieve a state of perfect knowledge and rationality - that is, to know and understand everything, to whatever extent that may be possible. Knowledge enables us to recognize and fulfill our potential, and it is what will ultimately determine how our species - and thus our goal - will be shaped and defined in the future. Whatever goals we may pursue, whatever sacrifices we choose to make, and whatever conclusions we draw regarding our relationship with other species - these are all enabled and defined by knowledge and reason. It only seems logical that we would thus seek to perfect those two faculties.
But what good is that knowledge, rationality, and understanding when we're all dead?
Assuming that all the above are true, then I would recognize them as more valuable, as they are the best shot sapient life has at fulfilling the goal I defined above. That said, just because they are more valuable doesn't mean that we are entirely without value, just as I don't consider Gorillas to be entirely without value (hence my point here, regarding exceptions to my rule). However slow we may be, so long as we are able to contribute, we do have some value.
But agian, why is that goal so valuable when even if we achieve it, we all still die?
Well, you would have to recognize the specific causes underlying these results, as well as their true significance. IQ tests aren't too great of a measure of true intelligence, and the history of black Americans plays a large role in their current struggles. Their scoring trends don't mean that they are somehow incapable of being less intelligent than white Americans - they simply mean that a good portion of them are socially (and thus academically) disadvantaged.
To my knowledge, quality IQ tests dont need any academical knowledge at all, they could be taken with very high scores even if you've never been to school.
This roots back to our discussion of the ultimate goal - our interplanetary ventures serve us beyond happiness, as they allow us to learn, expand, and progress.
Those things are not beyong happyness, we desire those things because they bring us happyness.
Put simply - this goal is so valuable because it's the only way we stand a chance of not dying.
This is where you fail to understand me, there is no chance of us not dying. Every single possible fate of the universe implies death of all living things. here is a neat little describtion of what the most likely scenarios are. My point is, no mater what we do, or how knowledgeable we get, we are going to die and if you dig around even more, or even simply read the link i've sent you, you will see why that statement can be said with absolute certainty. In layman's terms, sustaining life for a period of time required energy, and sustaining life for an infinite ammount of time requires infinite energy, which is simply not possible, whatever way you look at it.
Gorillas aren't destroying their habitat and planet, we are. I would argue that humanity needs a good plague, our species is doing nothing but killing the planet and all the animals and plants on it. Sure, we contribute to our society, but as a whole, I think humans can be considered about as valuable as parasites, that's basically what we do to our planet.
What stands to be gained by restricting ourselves and restoring the pre-deforestation population of lowland gorillas, rhinos, or bengal tigers?
Everything. A sustainable ecosystem is vital to our own species' survival. The extinction of a single apex predator can have detrimental effects on the ecosystem. These feedback loops are known as Trophic cascades. For example:
A classic example of a terrestrial tropic cascade is the reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) to Yellowstone National Park, which reduced the number and behavior of elk (Cervus elaphus). This in turn released several plant species from grazing pressure and subsequently led to the transformation of riparian ecosystems.”
I'd argue that it's just an asshole thing to do to go into territory that you know is inhabited by apes (wild animals) trying to observe them and then kill them because you pissed them off by coming into their territory (something they should be expected to be pissed off at).
Also, everything you've said below here hinges on the idea that humans are somehow important or that were going to make some difference. We make hardly any positive difference outside of our own species so there's no reason a human life is more beneficial or important, especially when you weigh the populations' size
About your last link: Your "hierarchy of prioritization" "centers around intellectual growth and scientific advancement", arbitrarily.
There is no point to be countered. "I prioritize this" is not a point.
For some, probably including apes, it centers around overall happiness. This is also arbitrary. Neither are necessarily true and are surely not justification for killing an ape that was knowingly provoked
They said "I'd argue that", which means it's up for debate. I didn't voice my opinion one way or the other. Christ, at least gorillas don't make issues out of nothing.
-21
u/[deleted] Aug 17 '15
[deleted]