OK, I left a few things off my list up there (thinking, feeling, playing, sleeping or not ect.) but you get the idea.
Hmmmm…ok, choosy I think that I am going to be forced to concede the OP. Since it is impossible to get outside of ourselves and create purely objective means of judging worth, I suppose that there is no truly rational basis for assuming that we are superior, only that we are the most unique species on the planet. I can’t think of a way to prove that this uniqueness makes us superior. I guess I’ll have to go back to the we can kick any other species butt argument in order to rationalize my speciesist outlook on life 
The artist/scientist thing still intrigues me, though…
OK, but maybe our assumption that we are superior and our desire to tame the Earth is a trait that is natural to us and has been selected for. Can you come up with a purely objective way of judging whether it is stupidity, Satasha?
No, calling actions and attitudes stupid that could lead to self-extermination of the human species is a subjective judgement on my part. They may be selected for or they may be cultural. Never the less they may turn out to be objectivly maladaptive in terms of survival.
No worries Satasha I agree with you
Neuro, what are you, a neurotic or a psychic?
I was just going to post on this very question. In the OP I said,
Emphasis added here.
Note, I didn’t say that there’s no reason for it, but that the speciesism cannot be justified by reason. I believe there are powerful motivations inherent in our nature for believing as we do.
Consider that all species place a great emphasis on survival of their own kind. And few species place even a dollop of their resources on ventures to preserve other species. (Humans and fungus farming ants are notable by virtue of their expenditures to maintain unrelated species. However, in the case of the ants, their labors are rewarded with a steady food supply. With humans, some may argue, that efforts directed at habitat and species conservation are motivated by a sense of conscience and higher purpose. I do not deny there may be a hint of this. However we know with certainty that the fate of our own species is linked to the ecosystems that sustain many of the species we seek to preserve. In addition, even if our conservation efforts prove to be a monumental failure, if along with our species we take out 90% of thes species alive today, a visitor to this planet a million years from now, a blink in geological terms, would be hard-pressed to find evidence of our catastrophic demise. The Earth is an engine pumping out ecological richness. Our passing would be without the slighest fanfare.)
Why speciesism? Because like likes like. We preserve genomes most like our own. This has an intraspecies component as well. Did you ever wonder why friends come and go, but family is forever. Like likes like. We work to preserve the integrity of our bloodlines first, the integrity of our species second.
To some extent I view the rules of nature as beyond reproach. Is it hubris to question the rules of a game that has been played for 3 billion years prior to our emergence, and that has produced a richness and complexity beyond our comprehension? There is no reasoned justification for specism, but perhaps there is stronger justification than mere reason.
Here’s a thought for you: what if the only reason we’re ‘special’ is that we, as a species, are the only organisms capable of spreading Earth’s biosphere beyond the Earth (instead of humans, maybe we should be called Gaia’s Sperm). Has any other organism come even close to this capability? Nope. Maybe the whole point of 3 billion + years of evolution has been to create a species capable of escaping the local gravity well. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! 
Maybe a little of both
The Venusians did it. That’s why I consider them superior to humans and place myself in their service. That’s also how I knew you were about to post on the topic, choosy. All hail the Venusians…submit to their will before it is too late.
Good God, I’m tired. Must…get…sleep…
We are most definitely just another animal species.
I have my own particuliar definition for a human being who is actively participating in the animal kingdom as opposed to the human animal kingdom:
Any person who enforces their view or emotions on another physically is not a person.
In my mind, language is central to being human. From the get go, we are given language as a tool to express our needs, thoughts, whims, inspirations, anger…etc.
Although it can be argued that animals have a rudimentary spoken communication system…I doubt it is as nuanced.
In animals, the response to dissatisfaction with a social engagement usually ends in physical confrontation (whether a slap on the nose with a paw or a fight to the death).
Human animals who resort to physical means in order to display their displeasure are effectively resorting to typical animal behavior and rejecting human forms of communication to express themselves.
Maybe a little of both
Wabbit, there’s a dead horse in this thread. You’re beating it 
The question in response to this is that by what objective measure is our ability to explore space proof that we are superior, rather than just unique? Remember, you’re not allowed to use any human standards of judgement. You must step outside your humanity, become one with the universe, and then formulate a completely objective set of criteria.
Hmm, perhaps I’m not being clear enough in what I’m trying to say. I’m looking at it from a BIOSPHERIC perspective, not a human one. The only way the biosphere ensures its survival is to have a species escape the gravity well and we’re fortunate enough to be the one species that can accomplish this. All of our art/science/unique traits etc. etc. are irrelevant in this model except where they help us escape Earth. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the ‘Gaia Theory’ but it basically boils down to the premise that the entire web of life on Earth is one gigantic, connected organism. If you look at it from It’s perspective, humanity with all it’s vaunted values and spirituality is little more than self-aware sperm (which is a little deflating). Anyway, sorry if I’m still not getting it and flogging said deceased equine, but I think this idea does prove how we’re ‘special’ (and not in the bad sense of the word…
Hmmm…interesting. I must ponder this. Maybe I conceded to early…
I’m not going to say that humans are completely above and beyond every other “animal” species. I agree that the standards for judging this kind of superiority is based on standards created by humans. Then again, what other standards are we expected to use? Its already been said that we cannot judge other “animals” because we cannot truly understand them. We have to use what we know, we shouldn’t just guess and say thats the fact. We say a dolphin or shark is better at swimming than a bird. Why? Because its true. Is a shark or dolphin a better animal, though? (Sidenote: would you guys consider Superman a superior animal? He is practically invincible were it not for that blasted kryptonite.)
Point is, we may not have physical attributes (for example, wings or fins or something) that would immeadiately set us apart from other “animals”, but the ability to constantly adapt is a huge factor I would consider that humans are better off than other “animals”. Sure we can’t make webs to catch flies, but we can find ways to do it. In this case, I don’t think it would take long to devise an even superior method of doing so. (Like capturing spiders and making them work for slave wages) I think there is definitely a conscious effort apart from survival that would influence this sort of endeavor (Who’s capturing flies and spiders anyway?). People do things for the sake of doing them. Mountain climbers surely don’t climb mountains to PROLONG their lives. Climbers say they do it because it is there.
In the grand scheme of things, who really knows whats good and whats not? Is anyone better than anyone else when looking in the big picture? I’m not really sure, I guess we really HAVE to guess and hope its right.
I would like to apologize in the here and now if several of my posts look rather schizophrenic (apologies to any schizophrenics out there), I’m having server problems and as a result it posts things I didn’t mean to post. Please don’t take some of my earlier posts and assume I am an idiot
Anyways, SouprChckn, I don’t think anyone is saying that we can’t, or shouldn’t, make judgements and comparisons to the best of our abilities. Choosy’s, (IMHO, I don’t want to put words in another person’s mouth here) is that while we can make these judgements, we need to recognize that they are biased and not universal absolutes.
I wish I had more time for this debate right now (it’s one of my favorite GDs). For now, here are my 2 cents…
Humans are animals that differ only (well, mainly) in degree of intelligence. Someone mentioned literature, etc. Well, many/most animals communicate. I submit that human’s higher degree of intelligence has resulted in more sophisticated types of communication that we call literature, art, music, etc.
I’ll emphasize “higher degree of intelligence” because it appears to be “of the same kind” as animals, not an entirely different type of independently created/evolved intelligence. Observe human behavior in fighting, sexuality, terratoriality, etc…very animal like.
Speaking of art, someone said that animals have none. Very debateable. Aside from the common examples of art from primates (granted, in lab settings), there is a species of bird (I forget which - sorry) whose males build incredibly decorative nests and the females choose their mates based on which nest is the most artistic (or at least the most artistically appealing to that female). The males’ nests are all different and even I found them to be much more artistically appealing than many human works of art. (Not that I’ll be mating with birds anytime soon!)
Our intelligence is our best asset, but high intelligence has yet to prove itself as an evolutionary advantage considering that humans have only been around for a few million years and H. sapiens have only been around for a 100 or 200 hundred thousand years. It may be that high intelligence destroys itself…we seem to keep coming close to this.
Not all animals are 100% instinctual and humans are not 100% without instinct.
The very fact that we evolved from other animals should be indication enough that we are animals ourselves. Humans are amazing. Other animals are amazing. There should be no shame in acknowledging a connection.
ok, that was more than 2 cents.
IIRC, it’s the weaver bird. Note, that the birds’ talents are employed in the service of nature’s plan. Namely, mate selection. Many so-called higher human talents are employed in this regard as well. Just look at the SDMB. How many of our members are here to impress potential mates with their bulging gyri?
Amen! And this was the burr in my britches that led me to start this thread. I find it curious that a common theme among all walks of discrimination is the desire expressed by some members of the priviledged parties to rationalize their superiority. Speciesists might learn from the failures of these other attempts.
Why must we always feel superior? Is this cultural? Does this trait run deeper, into our genetic inheritance? I put in my $.02 in my previous post. I’m curious what others believe?