Post

In a spirit of friendly debate I'd like to pick up on Canaltia's suggestion that the ability to think confers moral worth on humans because it is why we're ultimately dominant over other species. Firstly, are we? We're currently dominant for sure, but ultimately dominant sounds confident. Are we absolutely sure human extinction isn't a possibility, that we aren't like the dinosaurs in being dominant for a period of time before being overtaken by events? In terms of the history of the planet we've been around for the blink of an eye, and we're clearly heading for self-inflicted problems that we show no sign of being able to solve. It's very early to be talking about ultimate dominance.

I've just been watching the new David Attenborough programme The Green Planet, and that contains some good examples of how plant species become dominant over others. Balsa trees are developed for extremely rapid growth so they beat rivals to the sunlight in the canopy. Lilies are weaponsed in various ways that enable them to totally cover bodies of water to the exclusion of all other plants. I doubt many people would want to say that these abilities confer greater moral worth on balsa trees and lilies than is possessed by the species they dominate. So why should homo sapiens be unique in having moral worth attached to its winning move?

Intelligence is one of a variety of characteristics that have for a time confered an advantage on a particular species. But species exist within environments and are interdependent in highly complex ways. Dominance is by its nature therefore temporary because if a species dominates too much it undermines itself. Humans tend to think they can leave their cradle behind and exist outside of nature. A century from now I suspect this will look like a very outdated form of hubris.