To set the record straight, speciest is a more extreme version of racist. The term does not exist because it is something that doesn't really exist in the human race yet. Got news for the humans though, the real-deal-physically-changing-werewolf packs out there are excellent examples of this condition. Their hatred for humans is as strong as old white man's hatred for blacks. all social references and preferences apply as well. They are truly speciest and for a short time tragically, I was too. The condition of speciest matters more than racism. Its one thing to have the potential threat of a variation of a specie to be reduced to slavery. But imagine if that happened to the whole human race. It should consider itself damn lucky werewolves are almost extinct and don't possess sufficient numbers to enslave it. Thankfully times are changing and some of have gotten over this and changed with the times. As for the rest....well......they will just have to become victims of the change then. Those of us that have changed will simply keep the door open for rest to step through should they finally come around. This may now seem like a familiar story and it is. Just a more severe and different label thats all.

K... I'm not going to get into the sticky discussion of what does or does not exist. I hope others will avoid such discussions here too. That is not the intent of this post.

You have an opinion relating to less controversial animals (i.e. ones that everyone, without question, would agree exist) like dogs or chickens?

Sorry, didn't mean to get off track
Something more real and tangible.
Americans nearly wiping out the wolves boarders strongly on Speciest.

Thanks for understanding!

Cool! Good example. So how do you see the attempted extermination of wolves by humans species-ist?

Humans exterminating wolves, or seeking to, is not speciest. It's self-preservation by removing resource competition.

Humans are predators, but we're uniquely greedy predators. Only the hubris of humans will view every deer/rabbit/pheasant as theirs and seek to kill off every predator that might kill a single one. As a result there are more deer in North America today than there were when Erik the Red set foot on the Maine coast.

But luckily such behaviors can be recognized and responded to. We can accept that all humans are racist, and choose not to exhibit that behavior. We can accept that humans believe themselves not to be any manner of animal and laugh that fallacy off, coming to the understanding that humans are an intrinsic part of the biosphere ... the single most destructive, to be sure, but as integral as an ant. Humans can acknowledge their destructive core tenancies and adjust their behaviors accordingly.

Animals cannot.

"Humans can acknowledge their destructive core tenancies and adjust their behaviors accordingly."

Then how do you explain the breeding policies within a wolf pack. ONLY the Alpha pair breeds.

That's not a wolf pack thing.

That is a behavior common through ALL grouping predators. Only the leaders (those most physically able of managing their group and bringing in enough food to sustain the offspring) breed. Even among prey species (cows, horses, ect) only the alpha males tend to breed.

Humans took that and threw it all out the window... we'll purposely allow someone with dozens of hereditary diseases the full ability to reproduce without limitation with no concern what the results will be three generations down the line.

Ahhh, morality...

Only used wolf pack as one example out of many. That way everyone had something familiar to identify with

I want to be a werewolf!

Technically, I do believe that valuing human life over other life is species-ist, but how unethical it is to practice it I think largely boils down to a case-by-case basis. I think we have to be conscientious of what is best for the world at large. Sometimes, we need to be more selfish and look out for our own interests (or more to the point in this argument, the interest of our species), and sometimes we need to understand that another species' continued existence and right to thrive must take greater precedence than our own for the preservation and balance of nature. I can't think of any examples right now where the latter would come into play, but I think that's because we have yet to view the universe in which we live under such parameters. We ARE selfish as a species, but then, can you name me one species that actively sacrifices itself for the sake of another? Perpetuation of the species is our base and primary drive, just as it is with all other life. Are we less moral because we understand it while we engage in it?

Nice. You're getting into a number of issues I'm planning on posing in the near future.

So you see the moral issue being a relative/situational one rather than an absolutist one?

I'll also get into one of my planned future topics with this next bit myself; as possible examples of species where you couldn't think of any, perhaps whales/porpoises or the great apes? In most all cases species in those categories are highly intelligent and possess extremely intricate social interaction (which could easily be argued to be culture), and are highly endangered.

Your point about the selfish nature of all species (when relating to other species) is a good one, though it raises the question of whether or not to apply morality to the behaviors of the non-human animals. In either case, there is extensive possibility for rich discussion and debate.

Until we can prove conclusively that other animals have the level of self-awareness to derive a sense of morality for themselves, I don't think it would be fair to impose our own morality on their instinctual behaviors.

I think it's all a matter of degree. As was just pointed out, there isn't a species on the planet that doesn't care more for its own kind than for others. In fact, it's impossible to live without killing and eating other living things. So we have to cause a certain amount of harm to other species just for our own day-to-day survival. I just think it should be done without gratuitious cruelty or violence.

For example, I see nothing wrong with slaughtering thousands of cattle as painlessly as we can... but punching and kicking them around first becasue "they'll be dead anyway"... makes me think "what's wrong with you people!?" In a similar way, I'm not against animal testing of pharmaceuticals... but animal testing for cosmetics in lethal doses? For what, to satisfy our own vanity?

We have to kill to live, that makes us all a little bit speciesist. I accept that... I just draw the line at "cruel and unusual".

Loaded both barrels with this one you did, doggone sure.

Humans are speciest... animals are speciest. It's a requirement of survival.

Placing a value on a human life over the life of a non-human is something that we cannot easily do. Our drive to protect our own, not only because they are human but because they are sentient, reasoning creatures opposed to an animal (no matter how smart) is paramount.

I own wolves, but I know that when placed against the welfare of a human - even a stranger - I would grudgingly find myself willing to sacrifice one of my beloved wolves to spare a human.
Unless that human proved themselves unworthy of the respect I give my wolves. I also work in corrections, and I'll tell you right now that I'll let ten typical 'inmates' die to save one animal.

I consider myself an animal lover, I'm a zoophile after all, but I don't consider it 'speciest' to choose a human over an animal when it comes to preservation of life. I'm hard-wired to do so, I am conditioned to empathize with the human's situation (though I empathize with animals FAR more keenly), and am conditioned down to a genetic level to protect my own. It's not speciest, it's not a consciously chosen process of thought.

And then there is the sheer investment in a human life. It's monumental. An animal, even one as long lived as a horse or a mackaw, can be replaced relatively easily (yes, it's not *that* animal) whereas a human can not be replaced. You can't just go out and buy another Jane or Johnny from the corner pet store (or wolf, for that matter, but they are rather easy to come by) as you might a chicken or chihuahua.

Also... a dog's family won't sue if you save the human. The human's family WILL sue if you save the dog.

Maybe but no because it is just the order of things in the world. Most animals defind their own first of they defind any at all other then them selves.