To set the proper perspective for the following opinion, let me state at the onset that I am a…
By: Kalikiano Kalei
Tags: Philosophy, Religion And Spirituality, Cultural Anthropology, Faith, Sociology

To set the proper perspective for the following opinion, let me state at the onset that I am a ‘non-believer’, albeit one who was raised as a child (through the age of 13) as a Christian (Anglican Church) and who is not entirely devoid of a certain sense of amorphous spirituality (probably thanks to my Hawaiian genes, LoL) . While this is a very thoughtfully composed and aptly articulated argument you have set forth, I personally take issue (from a purely philosophical stance) with the premise that human beings are somehow more intrinsically ‘valuable’ than any other form of biologic life on this planet, since the logic behind it assumes the existence of a ‘caring’ deity. Although I am not a Buddhist, and don’t argue that point as a Buddhist might (trying valiantly to not step on so much as a virtual ant), my counter-argument is based upon the fact that human beings (accepting the premise that there is no ‘supreme deity’ who cares one way or the other about people) have been mysteriously ‘gifted’ by the forces of evolution to possess the ability to evaluate data and make appropriate behavioral decisions (i.e. the unusually large & well-developed frontal lobe of the brain). And yet, given the wide and variable range of human intelligence that predominates in our race (not the correct term of reference, but you know what I mean), human beings consistently make the wrong decisions (i.e. decisions that are frequently hurtful, harmful, dangerously impactful and ethically immoral).

The ability to reflect intelligently is, of course, affected by a great many variables, but nonetheless human nature seems to contain a polar duality of radically diverging capabilities: on the one hand, humanity has the potential to soar to great heights of inspired benevolence, but on the other able to sink into the deepest depths of utter depravity. A great number of academic studies over past decades have further singled out and highlighted this frustrating dual-nature we human critters possess and have documented the fact (at least to my satisfaction) that ALL of us have the potential and the ability to switch instantly from ‘saint’ to ‘demon’, quite literally in a heart-beat. One step forward, one step back. All it takes is the right set of circumstances, influences and/or causative dynamics.

For this reason, and given that humanity is collectively engaged in the utterly deleterious commercial process of destroying the very world we live on and are supported by (e.g. through the myopic conversion of natural materials and resources into profit), hypothetically speaking I feel that this world is better off without Homo sapiens (since our species is so obviously a ‘failed’ evolutionary experiment) altogether and (again hypothetically speaking) would be relieved to see our species become extinct. Hopefully, this would allow ‘Mother Nature’ to make another stab at evolving a better highest sentient life form to replace as ‘custodians’ of the planet. A responsibility we appear to have abnegated totally.

Consider all this a misanthropic sentiment if you will, but in keeping with that conviction I would rather help a dog (or other ‘lower’ life form) than a fellow human being (who has been blessed with the ability to exercise good sense and yet fails to do so). The fact that I am a keen appreciator of wolves, dogs and other canids is beside the point. As for PETA, ugh. I don’t care for them, either. Thanks for some very thought provoking reflections, Noby! Keep it coming!

Cheers, K2