Value of lives ?

[Externet]

Greetings.

Is there intrinsic value (not given by humans) to different species ?   Which is more valuable ?  

A mouse or a rabbit ?

A sardine or a shrimp ?

A camel or a donkey ?

A watermelon plant or a maize plant ?

A bee or a wasp ? 

A vulture or a seagull ?

Or are all lives the same value,  be it a hummingbird or a crab ?  

 

[iNow]

Depends on what you mean by valuable and in what context. 

An old tool that belonged to my grandfather is valuable to me, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t get more than $1-2 if I tried selling it. 

Likewise, there’s certain sports memorabilia that would sell for tens of thousands of dollars, but couldn’t care less about it. My tool is worth more to me.

If I need plants pollinated and honey to survive hypoglycemia then bees are more valuable, but if I have an issue with caterpillars eating my crops or insects and other pests making us ill, then the wasps are more valuable.

The only answer is “it depends.” Value has many meanings, and rather often cannot be measured nor counted at all (I value my child’s health, for example, but cannot offer a number to explain how much).

 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Externet said:

Is there intrinsic value (not given by humans) to different species ? 

Value is in the eye of the beholder which can be human or other. A rabbit has more value to a coyote than a mouse because its value is measured in calories.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Externet said:

Is there intrinsic value (not given by humans) to different species ?

No.

Every living thing values its own life above all others, with the occasional exception of parents who put their offspring first.

AFAIK, only humans value ideals above human life, but they generally value human life above all other species, and some species, not at all. 

[Intoscience]

I believe some, maybe all, insurance companies use set a standard monetary rate for lives, certainly during a tragedy like a plane crash etc.. I've heard them state a value, something around $5m seems to be what I recall. Then there is things like pet insurance etc... 

But as iNow states, depends in what context and what you mean by value.

 

 

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Value is in the eye of the beholder which can be human or other. A rabbit has more value to a coyote than a mouse because its value is measured in calories.

 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No.

Every living thing values its own life above all others, with the occasional exception of parents who put their offspring first.

AFAIK, only humans value ideals above human life, but they generally value human life above all other species, and some species, not at all. 

There are cases where animals have sacrificed (or at least been prepared to) themselves to save others. You do hear, on occasion, where a dog has stayed by the side of their owner, even if this means starving and/or risking their own death. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Intoscience

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

There are cases where animals have sacrificed (or at least been prepared to) themselves to save others. You do hear, on occasion, where a dog has stayed by the side of their owner, even if this means starving and/or risking their own death. 

Also e.g. ants workers / soldiers die protecting the Queen.

[Intoscience]

8 hours ago, Externet said:

intrinsic value (not given by humans)

I don't understand what you mean by this? Can you elaborate please?

Thanks

[Externet]

When in need to feed a starving -say dog- to keep alive;  is a less valuable and proper choice to feed such dog with a mole or with a chicken ?   We humans can prefer to 'discard' the life of a mole to feed the dog instead of a more 'appreciated' chicken.  If that dog did bite your child, is the value the same ?

Or, why humans prefer to not fish whales that consume millions of lives daily instead of maintaining alive millions of shrimp ?   What can induce thinking the life of a giraffe is better to keep than the life of a beetle ?  Is size a factor ?    Is useability a factor ?  Is sentiment a factor ?  Your cat is more valuable to you than a feral cat in Namibia is to that native human there.  Humans can give a value of preference that am trying to take out of consideration.  Do all lives have the same rights to survive ?

Am not good enough about expressing myself.  Hope there is a recognizable idea above.

[Bufofrog]

18 minutes ago, Externet said:

When in need to feed a starving -say dog- to keep alive;  is a less valuable and proper choice to feed such dog with a mole or with a chicken ?   We humans can prefer to 'discard' the life of a mole to feed the dog instead of a more 'appreciated' chicken.  If that dog did bite your child, is the value the same ?  Your cat is more valuable to you than a feral cat in Namibia is to that native human there.  Humans can give a value of preference that am trying to take out of consideration

In your OP you said, "Is there intrinsic value (not given by humans) to different species", but these comments are all about human values, so I am not sure what you are trying to say.

[Intoscience]

26 minutes ago, Externet said:

When in need to feed a starving -say dog- to keep alive;  is a less valuable and proper choice to feed such dog with a mole or with a chicken ?   We humans can prefer to 'discard' the life of a mole to feed the dog instead of a more 'appreciated' chicken.  If that dog did bite your child, is the value the same ?

Or, why humans prefer to not fish whales that consume millions of lives daily instead of maintaining alive millions of shrimp ?   What can induce thinking the life of a giraffe is better to keep than the life of a beetle ?  Is size a factor ?    Is useability a factor ?  Is sentiment a factor ?  Your cat is more valuable to you than a feral cat in Namibia is to that native human there.  Humans can give a value of preference that am trying to take out of consideration.  Do all lives have the same rights to survive ?

Am not good enough about expressing myself.  Hope there is a recognizable idea above.

It's a bit of a moot question unless we assign a value ourselves. As Zaptos stated, in the animal kingdom where survival depends on devouring another life form then each life has a differing value to the next and is dependent on the value' r. 

So if I've interpreted you correctly, then no I don't think there is an intrinsic value to any life, unless one is put on it by another. Even the universe doesn't care.

[zapatos]

The value can also change on a daily basis. A gazelle has relatively low value for a well-fed cheetah and relatively high value for a hungry cheetah. The gazelle 600 meters away has a lower value than the gazelle 20 meters away. A dead gazelle has higher value than a living gazelle. 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Externet said:

Humans can give a value of preference that am trying to take out of consideration.  Do all lives have the same rights to survive ?

Your first assertion is correct. Humans do assign value to their own lives, to the lives of other humans and to the lives of other species. That scale of values can vary by culture, over time within a single culture; by individual and over time for that same individual. We usually value family members higher than acquaintances and friends higher than strangers - and yet people very often kill family members or friends when something in the relationship changes drastically enough. Other people are valued according to familiarity, or alliances, or shared beliefs.... and that can change suddenly when war is declared, or a former classmate commits a crime.

The question contradicts the assumption. Obviously, humans as a species don't grant any rights at all to other species. They assign value to other species according to the use another species has for humans: horses and dogs are valuable as workers and companions, until the horse gets old and is killed for dog-food. Cattle are important as food for humans: kept alive for milk, killed for meat. Wild animals are valuable for hunting or staring at in zoos; some are classified 'vermin' and marked for extermination.

But, of course, humans as individuals have many different attitudes.   

No other species, and certainly no alien or divine entity has the power to grant rights to any species or any person or any class of life-forms. 

[Agent Smith]

Let'a not waste time and energy asking this question to ourselves.

Ask mother nature.

Does she favor a rabbit over an ant, or a human over an octopus, so on and so forth?

I don't think so.

We (all living things, from viruses to blue whales) are all equal in value to momma nature! To those who think nature favors humans, do bring yourself up to speed - global warming is our eviction notice.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Agent Smith

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Agent Smith said:

Let'a not waste time and energy asking this question to ourselves

!

Moderator Note

It’s not up to you, as this is not your thread. The question was asked. If you don’t want to answer, don’t post. If you want to ask or discuss a different question, open a new thread.

 

[Agent Smith]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

It’s not up to you, as this is not your thread. The question was asked. If you don’t want to answer, don’t post. If you want to ask or discuss a different question, open a new thread.

 

👍

[Peterkin]

momma nature???

[dimreepr]

On 2/14/2022 at 3:02 PM, zapatos said:

The value can also change on a daily basis. A gazelle has relatively low value for a well-fed cheetah and relatively high value for a hungry cheetah. The gazelle 600 meters away has a lower value than the gazelle 20 meters away. A dead gazelle has higher value than a living gazelle. 

That about sums it up. +1

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

Ask mother nature.

Does she favor a rabbit over an ant, or a human over an octopus, so on and so forth?

Mother nature does not assign value and thus I agree that we are all equally meaningless in her eyes. However, living creatures do assign value and in their view we are not all equal.

[Agent Smith]

Just now, zapatos said:

Mother nature does not assign value and thus I agree that we are all equally meaningless in her eyes. However, living creatures do assign value and in their view we are not all equal.

Just wanted to provide a (different) perspective from which all life is valueless, not equally valuable.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

momma nature???

😁🤭🤯

[StringJunky]

Perhaps life as a process is more important than any particular species. When the last living process ceases, life as we know it ends. Everything alive has equal value. I'm trying to avoid anthromorphism.

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Perhaps life as a process is more important than any particular species.

To whom? Day to day, billions of people are only concerned with their own lives and don't give a whit what happens to 'life on earth'. Perhaps an alien civilization in charge of our galactic sector is more concerned with life on earth than any particular species.

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, zapatos said:

To whom? Day to day, billions of people are only concerned with their own lives and don't give a whit what happens to 'life on earth'. Perhaps an alien civilization in charge of our galactic sector is more concerned with life on earth than any particular species.

I did say I was trying not to be anthropomorphic. I was sort of taking a dispassionate god's eye view. I was attempting to distil it down to life as a biochemical process. As long as there is life, of whatever form, the universe has examples of systemic autonomy. Without those processes,  it's dead.... it's just a bunch of chemicals.

Edited February 16, 2022 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I did say I was trying not to be anthropomorphic. I was sort of taking a dispassionate god's eye view. I was attempting to distil it down to life as a biochemical process. As long as there is life, of whatever form, the universe has examples of systemic autonomy. Without those processes,  it's dead.... it's just a bunch of chemicals.

Value is assigned. You were trying not to be anthropomorphic but you still assigned a value. If 'god' is your answer to my question that is fine. Since I didn't know who was assigning the value you talked about I suggested an alien overlord.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Perhaps life as a process is more important than any particular species. When the last living process ceases, life as we know it ends. Everything alive has equal value. I'm trying to avoid anthromorphism.

That's what the people hoping to seed other planets with Earth life believe. I don't see how else humans can evaluate anything than from a human perspective. But there are many different perspectives available to humans, which makes it interesting. 

 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 As long as there is life, of whatever form, the universe has examples of systemic autonomy. Without those processes,  it's dead.... it's just a bunch of chemicals.

Can't argue with that. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That's what the people hoping to seed other planets with Earth life believe. I don't see how else humans can evaluate anything than from a human perspective. But there are many different perspectives available to humans, which makes it interesting. 

The possible seeding of other planets will be done according to accepted protocol of course. Your "from a human perspective" remark is valid, but the same applies to any other evolutionary advanced life forms that may exist elsewhere. 

My own perspective is simply life, the epitome of the evolutionary process, arising from abiogenesis.