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

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: That man from Israel says yes. Do we have the right to consider human beings as more valuable than other life forms? Inside, I say no. We are a part of nature and if we see our place within nature and that every life is supporting and intricately inter-connected with each other. Then, we’ll see all life is valuable. We will see that redwood tree, that redwood forest, the birds, the plants, the animals as a valuable contribution to our own existence. As my brother next to me says, it’s dangerous to consider. It's dangerous to consider our lives more valuable than others because then we are separate ourselves from nature. Of course, we are human, we value what we know and what we are, so the other question about egoism being the cause of human failure. It’s the ego that says we are more valuable than all of life that we are different and divine. If we connect the two, we connect the two and see that we are part of the divine and a part of life. Then you'll see all life is valuable. All life is valuable and sacred.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Benson Venegas: It's not a right, of, of right - it's not a matter of right or choice. I think one of the aspects that really strike me, that we're using it in the wrong way, is that there's a strong myth or belief that God give us the will and the power to make use of the resources and nature according to our will. The point is, that, this right, it's not a right. Is the way that we should be - the message there is that we should have the wisdom to have – to use things in the proper way. I guess I'm gonna give an example. Take of something - of somebody, for a moment, that lives in the last remaining tropical forest where you have endemic species of insect. And this person has to grow corn to give - to feed his kids. And at the same point, at the same area, there is a insect that probably is the last remaining population of that insect. Which would be the choice? Of course, people would decide that the best thing is to grow the corn. The lesson we learn here is that meanwhile we have the ability to move to another place, or to create alternative solutions, to have a better use of the places where we live. The insect cannot move. The insect live there. So the point there is that we need to have a new approach where right and choices - is not a matter of right, what is a matter of respect to really make right choices, to - that every life form on the planet would have the chance to coexist with human being.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Beverly Schwartz:

by Beverly Schwartz

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Bora Cosic: Off course we have to respect human beings as human, and the rest of living world we must respect as it is. Every leaf, every tree, every stone should be appreciated as it is. A good relation to the appearances surrounding us is in each being individual. We can’t value a human as a stone, so we have to value squirrel as it is and not as Hedy Lamarr. Everything exiting has right to bee acknowledged and on good relationship.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Brian J. Weller: Answertext will be available soon.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Catherine David: This is a question that has apparently religious implications. I am not a religious person but I admit very voluntarily that on a spiritual level, the question of the primacy of one life-form is a metaphysical one. It does not even seem to me though, it seems to me, that the question of the human beings today is difficult enough even if it seems to me that the defence and the respect of other life-forms is not incompatible. I myself have always thought that the cruelty to animals was no good sign ever.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: I don't think we have such a right and we should not, but we do it anyway. But we should be stopped because I think everything that is here have a right to stay here. And that's why each has their own home. They have their bush, they have their forest, we have our other place to live. We have no right to end no one's life. We have no right to end anything that lives, only unless you have to - for food, for example. But I think the more you respect such a non-human, the more closer you will come to respecting the other human being. For example, I was impressed living in Europe; the way they treat animals, the way they treat everything that lives. I was shocked. In Denmark, everything that lives has the right not to be hungry, and this was shocking for me. Consider to where I came from and because of this I actually began to value human beings more than I did before. And even today when I see that person I get scared. I'm a bit shocked because in Denmark the way they treat living things – animals - have made me a better person towards other human being.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: In the human evolution throughout the last 5 or 6 million years, since the development of the sapient out of the primate, the human being is regarded as the life form which is developed on the highest level. But the notion of soul, being a deeply philosophical notion, surely needs to be acknowledged as well for the animals and plants. If one considers the idea of the sacral, as pious, as life, it is possible to acknowledge the existence of soul in other life forms. But this acknowledgement of soul, respectively of consciousness, of cognitive intelligence, is only applicable on human beings. But human beings are nowadays acting not responsible towards the other life forms of the biodiverse evolution. We prove ourselves as not responsible. But it can be said for sure that in the evolution of the consciousness the human being as a soul has more responsibility than other life forms.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Cornel West: I think there is, for me, no doubt that the life of a human being does have more value than a life of an amoeba. I believe that the life of my mother has much, much, much more value than the life of a fly. That does not mean that we are justified in crushing other centia creatures. It does not mean that we are justified in systematically exploiting the mammals and animals. But, we must be candid and frank about the degree to which the lives of human beings can, in fact, be justified as having more value than the lives of certain other life forms. It is a hard question to you. We have to make hard judgments. They ought to be self- critical judgments that are open to revision. But, when there is so many fellow human beings, one billion living on $1 a day, two billion living on $2 a day, we cannot downplay their plight even as we support other life forms and attempt to protect other life forms, be they whales, be they penguins, be they dogs, or cats. The balancing of the animal rights movement with the human rights movement is a crucial one, and even the animal rights movement has to make certain kind of judgments about a variety of different life forms on the globe. The question is how to become ecumenical, to support as many life forms as possible without losing sight of the dignity of human beings.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 11:40:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: I don't think we have the right to consider ourselves firstly, you know, more valuable than other life forms; but the thing is if we are going to look at the history, people had been considering themselves as superior to other life forms. And this act of making her or his as superior than others justifies his action of using other life forms either in the development path or in a destructive manner, and this is the danger of it if you consider yourself as more powerful, more valuable than other life forms. But for me, we don't have the right to say we are more valuable than other life forms. It’s God -- God created everything in this world, and no one has the right to say you are more valuable than others. Although, we are to face the reality that people always think that they are more valuable and superior than other life forms. And, personally, I would say we have no right really to consider us more valuable than other life forms.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas