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

Statistically speaking, it might be reasonable to expect that the human child *could* have lived longer than Harambe. But I have to ask "so what? " Is the length of a life an indication of its worth, as Pro seems to be implying? John Keats, an extraordinary man of letters, theorist, and writer of sublime poetry died at age 25 [1]. Gerhard Sommer, a Nazi war criminal who murdered 560 innocent people in a single day, including 119 children, is still alive at age 95 [2]. Which life was worth more? Galapogas tortoises and koi fish live for around 200 years [3] - does that make them more valuable than Americans? If the argument is solely that due to living longer than a gorilla (or most other mammals), a human could "accomplish a lot of stuff", it must be pointed out that this could include growing up to be the next Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer. There is no reason to believe that any given child will grow up to be any particular mix of good or evil, thus this doesn't seem to be a valid argument. I don't accept the argument that the ability to breed makes a life more valuable. Is a sterile man's life worth less than the life of one who is not? And in any case, the only reason Harambe hadn't bred is that he hadn't yet reached sexual maturity, not, as Pro claims, he was past it [4]. To quote Pro: "Humans accomplish more than animals and have the brains needed to keep the world stable. If you say the lives of animals are equal to humans, then why can't any wild animal that are mostly left alone by humans perform anything to save the world? Wild animals have their own space and often, humans do not bother them but have they done anything to benefit the world? " The world was stable for billions of years before humans got here. Before humans arrived, the world didn't *need* saving. The planet was doing fine, animal species were coming and going in accordance with natural events. It is only the arrival of humans (which the movie "The Matrix" refers to as "a virus") that the Earth has been in danger. It is humans, not gorillas, nor any of the other millions of species, that threaten the very existence of the planet and all life on it. Humans aren't saving the world - they're destroying it. You say that "animals have their own space", yet in 2005 it was reported that the world's forests were being destroyed at the rate of 13.5 million hectares per year *by humans*, resulting in 2,000 species of mammals alone being threatened with extinction [5]. Thanks directly to our actions their "space" is diminishing at an appalling rate. If I wanted to be callous, based on the above I could respond to your question "How will it benefit the world if the three-year old child was left to die at the hands of Harambe? " with the simple answer that one less human equals one less force for destruction, based on the evidence. But instead, I'll just say that the death of Harambe was tragic. The death of the child would have been tragic. But while we can pretty much guarantee that left to his own devices, Harambe would have done nothing to harm the world, we can't say that with as much certainty for the human child. [1] . http://www.biography.com... [2] . https://sussle.org... [3] . http://10mosttoday.com... [4] . http://www.sciencealert.com... [5] . http://www.wwf.org.au...