Home Forums Deep Time Journey Forum Big History's anthropocentric bias Reply To: Big History's anthropocentric bias

Karen Chaffee

I had some thoughts along this line when once some time ago I was discussing an unrelated topic–whether it is important to have privacy as a right in our country or any country.
My argument (not very popular!!) was that once humans came up with extremely destructive weapons, we needed to relinquish privacy as a species. Why?
A nuclear weapon, for example, will kill all the wildlife and their community and society. I felt we need to protect the creatures who live on our planet, as a sacred duty. We need to make sure these weapons don’t get used to protect wildlife, not to protect us. Humans take second consideration in my view, because we caused the problem. To get off topic– my friends argued that spot checks would intrude more on some people and not others. What a dilemma–I felt (as a minority of one) still, first and foremost we need to preserve the earth and its life.
I bring this up because it seems that it is an example of when I supported the point you are making, if I understand you.
However, of course, I was thinking of horses, and deer, and birds, and even trees and insects. I was not considering bacteria and virus at the time–except in this sense: bacterial use the same genetic code we do. (There is only once universal genetic code.) So as a way to preserve a unique set of chemistry (which is how I think of the genetic code) I’d like to at least preserve a few bacteria if nothing else. As a chemist, I see bacteria as a complicated chemical system, but not a creature of importance. Of course, to ensure the survival of more complex life forms (wild horses, birds), we need to ensure the survival of the types of bacteria needed for life, which is the same _to me_ as saying we need to ensure we maintain a moderate temperature range and a supply of oxygen, etc. In other words, I never saw the bacteria as important for their own sake–am I correct in thinking that you do?