THE GREATEST SPECIES
Stuart K. Hayashi
It is more important for the human race to survive than any other species. Not only is a species’ attempt to the perpetuate itself over all other species the natural order of existence, but our survival is our only true standard for measuring the values of other things.
In natural selection, different species of monera, protista, fungi, plantae, and animalia compete with one another to ensure their own survival. Throughout this process, the weakest, slowest, and most poorly adapted lifeforms die off, in order to make room for the strongest, fastest, and most well-adapted, who will eventually produce a new generation of offspring potentially more suited to survival than the last. Through this process, useless traits of creatures are phased out, while the useful ones are improved upon, and new, unusual, “experimental” qualities emerge as well. Because of this growing competition in the natural world, each species is constantly forced to improve itself. As Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins put it, “Cheetahs . . . appear to be well designed to kill antelopes . . . if we reverse-engineer an antelope we find equally impressive evidence of design for precisely the opposite end: the survival of the antelopes and the starvation among cheetahs. It is as though cheetahs had been designed by one deity and antelopes by a rival deity.” Because one species seeks its own “self-interest” to survive, other lifeforms are forced to evolve as well. In free-market economics, this is referred to as creative destruction or spontaneous order.
Though we human beings have evolved far beyond the intellectual level of any known earth lifeform preceding their time, we are still a part of nature, and the laws of natural selection still apply to us. The early humans hunted other animals for food. Even today, when we can simply go to the store to fetch meat, there are a number of people who still hunt animals. This is not so much out of cruelty, than out of a killer instinct built into us all, explains the anthropologist Desmond Morris As an example of this “killer instinct,” he presents the domestic cat. No matter how much you feed it, it will hunt and kill mice. It does this, not because of some sort of anthropomorphic nastiness which we may attribute to it, but because it still has not lost its genetic need to make victims of other animals. As sad as it may be, not even humans have evolved beyond this need—even if we do not have to, we will attempt to hunt animals of other species. However, even without this genetic feature, nature has still presented us with the urgent need to compete with other lifeforms to ensure our own survival. We are in combat with a multitude of forest-dwelling species when we clear their habitats for development. Even our attempts to cure illnesses are an example of our species’ competitiveness—we are locked in a life-and-death struggle against lethal bacteria and viruses—our own natural predators. Our competition with other lifeforms to sustain and perpetuate our own kind is perfectly natural; it is what our genes "programmed" us to do.
If anything on earth is to be of great value, then a conscious mind must exist in this universe in order to perceive it. It is the belief of certain radical environmentalists and animal “rights” activists that nature has some sort of intrinsic worth, and that it would be better off without being “molested” by the hands of intelligent beings. Yet, if there were no intelligent beings existing on earth, then who would the world be valuable to? Surely advanced verterbrate creatures possess primitive emotions, as their feelings guide them in their everyday decisions. However, while a lion may experience a simple form of love, it has not been proven to form any abstraction of this idea at all. It is highly unlikely that even chimpanzees have a concept of an intrinsic value of anything other than their own bodies or offspring. Though many activists have criticized our industrial society for valuing beasts only for their usefulness to us, the same can actually be said for animals themselves. In fact, human beings are the only lifeforms which have been known to organize the mass preservations of endangered species. Humans, unlike animals, have evolved to the point at which they have formed many complex ideas about value, love, and worth. Some of these ideas may be incorrect, but for another earthling species to value this planet as much as we do, it would require a vast intelligence and millions of years of evolution. Yes, I agree with many others that the forests, rivers, Nile crocodiles, whale and zebras are quite beautiful. However, is the “beauty” that we believe them to possess not a concept created in our own minds—a value we have not given them?
Whether or not “nature” (in the context of it being a “victim” of our own kind) would be better off without the “menace of humanity” can sometimes be put into perspective when we examine what a few animal “rights” advocates have to say. When the elephant Tyke went on the rampage in Hawaii several years ago, I was outraged to hear certain activists bemoan the death of the elephant, while remaining absolutely indifferent to the death of its trainer, who gave up his own life to save another human being. Apparently, neither his life, nor the life of the man he saved, were as valuable to the activists as the elephant’s. In the past, the special interest group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has been quoted as saying, “Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth”; “I do not believe that a human being has a right to life”; and “I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals.” Perhaps these comments only reflect the opinions of the individuals who spoke them, and not of their entire group. However, to me, what these three statements do show us is not compassion for animals, but a hatred for man. While some may agree with these beliefs, anyone who values the lives of his or her own children should find them appalling.
If there is no divine Creator, and various lifeforms truly are “at war” with one another, who is entitled to decide which species has a right to survive and which doesn’t? We do—at least in the context of deciding for ourselves to “selfishly” perpetuate our own genes, just as lions “selfishly” decide that they deserve to exist more than the zebras they hunt. If we don’t believe that humans beings deserve to exist, which species will? None, except for perhaps a few dogs, which themselves were an “unnatural” result of humans manipulating nature through selective breeding. No animal will tell us that we have a right to live. If our species wishes to remain dominant on this planet (and I certainly hope that it does!) we must believe in our right to fight for our own existence at the expense of other lifeforms.
Return to Controversial Essay Page!
Back to Main
The above essay is Copyright © 1999 Stuart K. Hayashi, and may not be reproduced by any means without his written consent. All rights reserved.