Click here to have a listen.
Unfortunately, the quality of the article’s text lags far behind the audio in terms of their respective power to enlighten. For example, writer Brandon Keim ends the article with this gem of a thought:
What does it matter if a habitat vanishes, or changes in some basic way? Does it matter if animals in one region die out, so long as they exist in another? Or if a species goes extinct, so long as a few remain in zoos? Maybe it doesn’t matter. The answers aren’t obvious. [emphasis mine]
Sure, if you’re a genuine humanist — if you think that only human interests "matter" — then "the answers aren’t obvious." If you’re a humanist trying to answer those questions, you might end up seriously entertaining thoughts about the quantification of seemingly subjective properties (i.e. "beauty"), or the merits of skepticism about the relative accuracy of one’s perceptual apparatus (as if there are any merits). Of course, you would never question your own value as a human animal — and that is indeed what you are — because that’s the hubristic core of the humanist frame.
On the other hand, if you hold an even marginally humble (read: realist) view of the way things are, the common answer to each of Mr. Keim’s questions is absurdly obvious: "Yes." These animals are interested beings — so, of course it matters to them whether or not they suffer and die. And less importantly, it matters to me and others that they suffer and die — and also that our greedy species sacrifices them in the name of 2-ply toilet paper, coffee beans, vacation resorts, and superstitious junk medicines for sexually dysfunctional humans, to name a few.
If Mr. Keim isn’t aware of the basic biological fact that other animals have interests of exactly the same kind that we humans do, then perhaps it’s time for him to get out of the science writing business.
Cross-posted at HERE.