That a human life is intrinsically worth more than the life of an animal

Hello again and thanks for the response. The point is not about whether or not the world will end up as a dystopian place at the hands of humans. I agree that humans are responsible for the anthropogenic activities and poor decisions that affect this world. We are the problem and we are also the solution. You said, "...it's because humans have done such a wonderfully thorough job of screwing up the world that they are so valuable - because only they have the power to fix it? But very few seem to actually believe this line. ", and then you provided post-apocalyptic novels. Well, what about the Book of Apocalypse of the Bible? It ends by painting a utopian ending for everyone who are morally good. The Giver, The Hunger Games, etc. provide a hopeful conclusion to humanity. However, we are kinda getting off topic. This topic isn't about the failures of humanity. It's about the dominant control that humanity imposes on animals (in this case, mammals). My argument was that humans are more superior and intrinsically worth more than animals because we can make animals drop on their knees, feeling helpless and vulnerable to the problems that we have caused. Killing Harambe also benefited other animals too indirectly. Since the zoo is one animal short, they can help protect an endangered animal by keeping them in the zoo instead of being hunted, i.e. a giant panda. If not, the budget for Harambe could be used to take care of the other caged animals. Jane Goodall could have been right that the gorilla was being protective of the child but how do we retrieve the child from the gorilla without provoking it? Harambe could have thought of the child as his own so he would become naturally aggressive, leaving the zookeepers with no choice but to shoot it. You mentioned about humans knowing what is "good" and what is "bad". You said, "...what is "good" is anything that promotes our own happiness, comfort and safety at the expense of the fellow inhabitants of the planet." I don't see what you are trying to convey here because animals do the same also. Dogs hunt birds and squirrels for fun as well as hyenas steal food from other predators. Now, my definition of "good" and "bad" is more about knowing the rules. Animals do not have their own rules. They can commit incest and for them, it is nothing wrong but for us, we view it as depraved. This makes us superior because we have a deeper knowledge of the world around us. Furthermore, human emotions are taken to a whole new and deeper level as compared to animals. For example, humans show their sad emotions by shedding tears while animals do not. We also feel betrayed and hurt when our partners cheat on us. Animals do not. You mentioned speaking languages in humans. I acknowledge your facts but I was trying to point out how all humans have the ability to learn a new language among ourselves. Can a lion and cheetah understand each other even if belonging to the same family? No. Can they learn new "languages" of each other's ? No, they cannot. You said, "The chief mistake we make as humans, and the trap into which Pro has fallen, is that we define important characteristics according to what benefits us. We think we are great because we can build skyscrapers and rockets (and atomic bombs), because we can perform differential calculus and create symphonies. But our fellow inhabitants of the planet have evolved with no need for any of these things." You claimed that animals were living in harmony until humans arrived. Weren't fish in peace until bears arrived? Weren't gazelles in peace until big cats arrived? I can't stress enough how humans have the ultimate knowledge known to nature (exception of the Higher Power). Humans evolved from a cell much like any other animal yet we had the deepest knowledge, adapted faster, etc. but why did we change the world so much? The bottom line is humans are superior because we just have the knowledge, feelings and the ability to put any animal down on its knees.