Why? Also, by “have kids” do you mean start a family or donate sperm?
I could see an opposing realization that animals are directly competing with us, and therefore fair game.
Humans are even more directly competing with us. Are they more fair game?
If we value humans because humans are similar to us, and we find that animals are more similar than previously thought, it would follow that we would start valuing animals more.
If we value humans because humans are similar to us, and we find that animals are more similar than previously thought, it would follow that we would start valuing animals more.
If we are talking about kin selection, that doesn’t really follow—members of other species are very distantly related to us—and barely qualify as kin at all. Nor do they typically share memes with us—so their memetic relatedness with us is near zero as well.
Donating sperm is a lower-probability option, to be sure.
Humans don’t compete in zero-sum games, generally. If a particular human or set of humans forces me into a zero-sum competition, yes, they are fair game. In a choice between a mugger’s life and my money, I’m going to pick my money.
We already implement something like this with animals, which is why dogs and cats, who play a cooperative game with us, have more value than cows, with whom our relationship is closer to a synergistic low-sum game, which have more value in turn than coyotes or wolves. (In modern day, we rarely compete directly with coyotes and wolves, and they tend to get benefit from city folk from a halo effect from our affinity for dogs. Those who do compete with them rarely harbor such sentiments.)
Why? Also, by “have kids” do you mean start a family or donate sperm?
Humans are even more directly competing with us. Are they more fair game?
If we value humans because humans are similar to us, and we find that animals are more similar than previously thought, it would follow that we would start valuing animals more.
If we are talking about kin selection, that doesn’t really follow—members of other species are very distantly related to us—and barely qualify as kin at all. Nor do they typically share memes with us—so their memetic relatedness with us is near zero as well.
Donating sperm is a lower-probability option, to be sure.
Humans don’t compete in zero-sum games, generally. If a particular human or set of humans forces me into a zero-sum competition, yes, they are fair game. In a choice between a mugger’s life and my money, I’m going to pick my money.
We already implement something like this with animals, which is why dogs and cats, who play a cooperative game with us, have more value than cows, with whom our relationship is closer to a synergistic low-sum game, which have more value in turn than coyotes or wolves. (In modern day, we rarely compete directly with coyotes and wolves, and they tend to get benefit from city folk from a halo effect from our affinity for dogs. Those who do compete with them rarely harbor such sentiments.)