And why do we think of ourselves as being superior to other past species?
On superiority: other species don't have a conceptual view of the world. Every other species can't read and understand your argument, let alone refute it. This has ramifications on a political level: In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding what individual rights are. Imagine the ridiculous spectacle of taking a bear to court for mauling another animal, or a person.
What it comes down to is this: I want to live. Not just to metabolize and take up space like other animals do, but to live a full human life. That means having a huge impact on animals, no matter what I do (short of suicide). Even if I didn't eat meat, there are plenty of things that are crucial for human life (everything from agriculture to medical progress to displacing animals to make way for cities and factories). The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly human lives at all.
I am a human being, and I take pride in that fact. Because I am a human being, I can create art, write software, further our knowledge of the world through science, enjoy literature, and a whole host of other things that no member of any other species (currently known) will ever do.
> In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding what individual rights are
That's ridiculous. That's like saying children or people with Down syndrome have no individual rights because they don't understand them.
On the contrary, since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making moral judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to.
> The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly human lives at all.
You have the right to live your life as you choose, of course, but not at the cost of destroying everything else. At some point, we need to consider the aggregate consequences of there being 6.9+ billion people all demanding to live "distinctly human lives". Unfortunately, for coming generations this idea may be a luxury.
However, I'm not sure that it helps your argument much. People with Down syndrome are still human beings - with the ability to form concepts and speak language. Although they don't understand as much about the world as you and I do, they certainly understand a great deal more than any bear would. (Also they won't maul you.)
since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making moral judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to
I have a different view: in order to survive and thrive, each individual has to make moral judgements. That which furthers a particular person's life is the good (and he ought to choose it, if he wants to live), and that which harms it is the evil.
At some point, we need to consider the aggregate consequences of there being 6.9+ billion people all demanding to live "distinctly human lives".
Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans in human history (in industrialized nations)? A steady decline in climate-related deaths (which have fallen 98% in the past century)? The vast quantity and variety of food available at low prices at grocery stores? The ability to go across the continent in a matter of hours, safely? Need I go on?
> Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans in human history
No, that is what I meant by aggregate consequences. What you describe is the cause, or at best merely the current situation.
My point is that 6.9+ billion all thinking selfishly about their own right to live full lives leads to the modern equivalent of the tragedy of the commons.
50-60 years ago, we could reasonably argue that the most important right for a human being was self-realization. At this point, unfortunately, a single modern life contributes so much to the very destruction of the world -- in fact, even owning a moderately-sized dog contributes to the destruction of the world -- in a way that did not apply to previous generations, and that self-realization can no longer include the level of material wealth and, frankly, consumerist squandering that the current generations are built upon.
For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist at the detriment of someone else in the world. If everyone on the planet had access vast quantities of food at low prices, in today's market system, then the world's resources would be depleted at an unsustainable (or rather, more unsustainable that today) rate.
Your world view seems extremely simplistic and naive. I sincerely hope it's not representative of the typical HN liberartian. Libertarianism is about liberty, true, but not liberty at a cost to society.
squandering that the current generations are built upon.
What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"? Does wearing machine-washed clothes qualify? Buying new clothes so you feel good about the way you look? How about using a dishwasher to wash dishes? What about having a pet dog? How about building new homes, spacious enough so you have room to pursue hobbies and keep rooms from being cluttered and overwhelming?
For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist at the detriment of someone else in the world.
You have offered no evidence to support this. Ad hominems ("extremely simplistic and naive") won't cut it here.
Because I assumed it's common knowledge. Take a look at any of the countries that supply most of the world with food, natural resources, etc. Most of them are not anywhere near the first world in terms of wealth, living standards, etc. for the local population, and yet they are the major providers.
> What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"?
Most of human activity could be classified as squandering. We don't need most of the stuff that we have or consume. And yet it's very hard to give it up for the benefit of everyone else.
> Ad hominems ...
Not an ad hominem considering I spent the preceding paragraphs pointing out how your opinions were simplistic and naive.
On superiority: other species don't have a conceptual view of the world. Every other species can't read and understand your argument, let alone refute it. This has ramifications on a political level: In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding what individual rights are. Imagine the ridiculous spectacle of taking a bear to court for mauling another animal, or a person.
What it comes down to is this: I want to live. Not just to metabolize and take up space like other animals do, but to live a full human life. That means having a huge impact on animals, no matter what I do (short of suicide). Even if I didn't eat meat, there are plenty of things that are crucial for human life (everything from agriculture to medical progress to displacing animals to make way for cities and factories). The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly human lives at all.
I am a human being, and I take pride in that fact. Because I am a human being, I can create art, write software, further our knowledge of the world through science, enjoy literature, and a whole host of other things that no member of any other species (currently known) will ever do.