If You Earn A Lot Of Money,

I Don't Think There's Much Point In Bemoaning The State Of The World Unless There's Some Way You Can Think Of To Improve It. Otherwise, Don't Bother Writing A Book; Go And Find A Tropical Island And Lie In The Sun.

According To Classical Utilitarianism, The Only Intrinsic Good Is Happiness; The Only Intrinsic Bad Is Pain. That Implies No Intrinsic Value In Preserving Nature, That Preserving An Endangered Plant Is Valuable Only If It Benefits Humans Or Other Animals. Intuitively, That Seems Wrong But Perhaps I Shouldn't Trust My Intuition Here.

Habits Of Thought Lead Us To Brush Aside Descriptions Of Cruelty To Animals As Emotional, For "animal-lovers Only"; Or If Not That, Then Anyway The Problem Is So Trivial In Comparison To The Problems Of Human Beings That No Sensible Person Could Give It Time And Attention. This Too Is A Prejudice - For How Can One Know That A Problem Is Trivial Until One Has Taken The Time To Examine Its Extent?

Typically, Defenders Of Experiments On Animals Do Not Deny That Animals Suffer. They Cannot Deny The Animals' Suffering, Because They Need To Stress The Similarities Between Humans And Other Animals In Order To Claim That Their Experiments May Have Some Relevance For Human Purposes. The Experimenter Who Forces Rats To Choose Between Starvation And Electric Shock To See If They Develop Ulcers (which They Do) Does So Because The Rat Has A Nervous System Very Similar To A Human Being's, And Presumably Feels An Electric Shock In A Similar Way.

...chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, And Orangutans Are Thinking, Self-aware Beings, Capable Of Planning Ahead, Who Form Lasting Social Bonds With Others And Have A Rich Social And Emotional Life. The Great Apes Are Therefore An Ideal Case For Showing The Arbitrariness Of The Species Boundary. If We Think That All Human Beings, Irrespective Of Age Or Mental Capacity, Have Some Basic Rights, How Can We Deny That The Great Apes, Who Surpass Some Humans In Their Capacities, Also Have These Rights?