You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Holocene Mass Extinction Part 4: The Great Chain of Being
Although I disagree with the whole "dominion over the Earth and animal kingdom" (if it means "treat nature as you like, it will always regenerate magically; and animals never run out, kill as many as you wish"), and "a peasant will always be a peasant", etc., I still hold the Chain-of-Being's (and the Enlightenment's) belief that some creatures are superior to other creatures. For instance, if there's a car speeding toward a cat and a woman carrying her groceries and her child, I will save the woman&child rather than the cat. Does that make me a baddie?
Not in the least. Even the most dour, pragmatic materialist would say you did the right thing- though they might justify it with discussions of protecting your species gene pool or some such.
Here's an dilemma for you- what if it was an endangered species at risk of extinction, and losing this single breeding member could tip it over the edge? What if said endangered species was a keystone species in the local ecosystem?
It's a dilemma for sure. I would in most cases choose the creature that imo possesses the greater consciousness (see reply to @alexs1320 below). In your example case, I may put faith in humans being able to recreate (de-extinct) these species at some future time.
Interesting answer, I like it! (Also, my usual answer is somewhere along the lines of "fuck trolley problems.")
No, you are right, but your example is known in evolution as the "keen selection", you are saving your closer relatives (your brother is more important than a stranger, someone from your country is closer to you than some Inuit, etc...).
What would you choose: shark or salmon (salmon is "upper")
Or: Lemur vs Chimpanzee (chimpanzee is "upper" but lemurs are cute)
Or: some exotic unique lizard vs a juicy, tasty pig
What if I saved an alien (by definition not my gene pool) that I know has superior consciousness instead of the woman? What if I'd rather save Shakespeare than a cousin? Would that sufficiently falsify your theory that it's not my logical/moral mind talking, but evolutionary pressures to save my kin?
In all cases you mention, I would save the creature that in my opinion possesses greater consciousness. There could be exceptions, as in when two creatures of higher consciousness are more or less identical so having more that a few million becomes rather redundant :p (so maybe I would save the rare creature vs the common pig)
In case of Shakespeare, or your fellow soldier comrade vs traitor brother, you are saving the idea, what Dawkins is calling "the meme".
But I think we have that instinct to save our owns, or those like us. For example, you would hesitate for a second to destroy this coffee:
Now you made me crave a hot chocolate...
:)