Jul 23, 2007 12:37:21 AM cite

We all have the same organs and are made up of the same feelings. We all have families. Every living thing on this planet has a right to feel loved and cared for, and should not be judged simply on what it is. If this was the case there would still be segregation when you think about it, because we are basing everything on looks or "kinds".

by botulism

Nov 2, 2006 5:04:51 PM cite

Human beings are superior in many ways. Between a person and an animal, one should chose to save the person. Yet, this must not come with an arrogance that makes us forget about the world around us. We have a tendency to think that we are so superior that it gives us the right to treat the environment and animals like things that don't deserve our respect or attention. This is the attitude that we must change.

by emahleb

Sep 11, 2006 3:49:22 PM cite

The reason why I say no is simple: alot of humans dont even value or appreciate another human. Just because we think we can manipulate nature at our will, does not mean it is right or just. Our actions are based on our basic needs and demands. Just like an animal we want a peaceful life, always enough food and mabye a happy family. Humans are animals with more possibilities, tools and responsibility. A wild animal does not have a failure that we should judge. It's can and will only act by its instincts. Most animals exist far longer than us humans and we dare doubt and judge their nature, just because we think we are better? That's pathetic!

by Foossa

Sep 11, 2006 2:27:36 PM cite

There is no superiority of the man over the animals as we eat as they eat and they die as we die.

by miki99

Sep 11, 2006 8:07:57 AM cite

Human beings, I believe is the masters on Earth. They possess the quality of reason and work towards higher objectives that no creature on earth does. The cognition and fine works of human beings has no parallel on earth. As if, the earth -with all it's richess- were created for human beings to serve a certain purpose and build civilizations. The fact that a group of mankind acts wrongly does not mean that the mankind -as a whole- are wrong.

by sharaf

Sep 10, 2006 12:51:26 AM cite

If it were not for the plants and animals that we eat we could not survive. All life forms are of EQUAL value.

by notcriswell

Sep 9, 2006 5:05:54 PM cite

values in society are not static and change over time. Over the past millenium the category 'animals' included women (because the church knew they had no soul), black people, red indians and other non white/male human beings. The separation of animals and humans was decided by those in power and they were very fond of them selves and wanted therefore to have a special category for themself. Now the UN has included the great apes under the same rights as humans, so gradually we are correcting the misperceptions from the past! So to asnwer your question it depends on where you come from. Of course if you understand the relativity of your own value base the answer can only be NO.

by hendrik@druknet.bt

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: I think, we do not, because we are created of the same atoms, or elements as trees, or this. This is life, locked in the shell, and it is created in the same way like I am. It turns out to be a bird that would flie then and have a right to exist, like me. We have been very arrogant for a long time, thinking that a man is "the creator of the nature" and has a right to destroy everything around him. But killing and destroying everything around, a human beings does not realise that he is destroying himself. We haven’t been thinking for a long time about what we have been doing. We turned round rivers and destroyed mountains for our benefit, because “man is a creator of a universe”. We used that slogans and thought, that we did our life better, more comfortable. But we have made it more unbearable, we have destroyed ..around.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Abbas Beydoun: We need miracle for that which is difficult to get nowadays. This is just proposal that there will be suddenly no drugs more, so the question is naive. People who are suffering from drugs would believe that drug is the only problem in the world, but the others believe that there are other problems which cause suffer for the humanity. Everybody knows that Drug is a result than being a consequence and there is always concern which leads people to get away from the drugs until they ignore the hard reality.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Andries Botha: My personal perspective is, yeah, we don’t. My -- Our inability to accord value and equal value to other living things is measured by a manner in which, we are unable to sustain ourselves as integral living bodies within the world, which is physically deteriorating. It’s quite clear to me that our humanity as a dominant life form is losing its ability--it’s losing its domain --losing its ability to live in a sustainable environment. Environment is in serious trouble, that which we eat, that which we use, consumable losses, all these living entities. We do not have a right to assume, because sooner or later, our co-dependence on these other life forms, this balance will shift. This codependence will fracture, will break. This balance will and is being shifted, and our life, our humanity, is under threat because of our inability to accord value to other living things.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Actually, Silke, every life form is equally important. Every life form. Remember the old teachings that they say that everything began with the mineral world. And then after that came the plant world. Then after that came the animal world. And after that the human world began. So when you and I, we die tomorrow, the animal world will eat us. And when they die they will be eaten by the plant world. And when they die, they will be eaten by the mineral world. And thus life has no beginning, no ending. So to say that human beings’ lives are more worth than the other created beings in my view then we lose the balance. Human beings need the animal world, as the animal world needs the plant world, and the plant world needs the mineral world. And thus we are all equal. Now the human world’s responsibility today is to ensure that all safety is for all. That means for the animal world, the plant world and the mineral world. And when we don’t do that it is really imbalanced. Did you hear my answer?

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Everybody has – no at all. No, not at all. All life forms have the same values. Everybody has to have the same values; No, not at all. No, not at all. All lives have to have the same values.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I don’t think we have the right to consider human beings as being more valuable than other life forms. And if we do actually think that, I think it’s a real mistake because actually it works against us. The only way we can survive on this planet and I think enough evidence is in and we need to learn if we haven’t so far that we basically live in harmony with nature and that’s the only way to survive. With the climate change that we are seeing around us, with the destruction of our seas, the destruction of our forests, we are basically not endangering Mother Earth; what we are managing to do is endanger ourselves. So, if we think that we are more valuable than the others and other species, actually we don’t value ourselves because if we do value ourselves we would have a different form of life system, a different way of living on this planet so we would leave a very small ecological footprint because we know that we value ourselves and our survival. And the survival of the future generations of the children actually depends on living in harmony with nature, with respect and acknowledgment of other species.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think from the point of view of global wisdom and spirituality, it’s decisive to know that we again, do we have the right to consider human forms as higher or superior reflects again this culture of an egocentric culture form that privileges the self above the other. The self above other people, other species, and over nature, in contrast to an awakened culture that has been taught by our great traditions in our indigenous wisdom through the ages that when we recognize a profound interconnectivity and the sacredness of the fabric of all life, it is highly improper to privilege the human in an anthropocentric, egocentric world view that places the human as privileged above others. That kind of specism comes with the egocentric or ego-mental distortion of wisdom and compassion and of reality itself. So to the extent that the living global wisdom and global spirituality and recognize this interconnectivity and sacredness of all life, we would understand that human beings are part of that fabric and that nature is sacred and other forms of life, other creatures, other than humans, as our teachers like Jane Goodall for example on our world wisdom also reminds us, in terms of the sacredness of the life of chimpanzees and of other species, the dolphin, just to pick out a few. When you see the sacredness of everything as a reflection of the fundamental unified logos, then that kind of consciousness leads us to treat all life as sacred and having a kind of equality. They are not the same, but there can still be an equality in terms of their sacredness, in the biodiversity of all life in nature.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: I don't think it's a matter of right to consider human beings as more valuable than other life-forms. I think human beings often presume that human life is more valuable than other life-forms possibly because we relate to life-forms with which we can communicate with to have more significance in our ability to relate to them. Like for example, human beings relating to each other may have more significance than our being able -- our inability to talk to trees or rocks for example. But I don't believe that these other life-forms are less valuable. I think it is well recognized that every creature in creation has its role to play and has importance in any ecosystem in which it exists. So while we may consider insects to be pests to us, they play a very important role in being able to help the whole ecological life-form sustain itself as well as to continue to maintain itself. So in all aspects, life, whether in human form or non-human form, whether in a plant or animal or other kingdoms, would be considered to be very valuable. I think this whole aspect of man having been given dominion over the earth may create this presumption of our greater value or superiority in a way, but I think that that would be an incorrect presumption for us to have. Is it our right to be able to claim greater value over others, other life-forms? No. We don't have that right.

by Audrey Kitagawa