Stone asked:

To what extent is the human perception of dominion over the world similar to that of an animal's
natural belief that they are the dominant species, so as to ensure the survival of that species?

============

Hmm. Is there (as your question seems to suggest) really a 'human perception of dominion over the
world'? I would suggest that while this belief may still be held by individuals (and as part of some
religions) it is no longer the dominant view (at least not in the Western hemisphere). Also what is
meant by dominion over the world? That we are the dominant species? Surely not, there are better
candidates e.g. in insects and bacteria, who vastly outnumber human beings. That we have a
God-given right to exploit other beings? I have yet to see this properly argued in a philosophical way
... Regarding beliefs it seems to me that most philosophers would claim that animals do not have
beliefs. But even if we point to animals forming habits and call those a kind of (very simple) belief
(e.g. regarding where an animal expects to find food based on recent experience), we do not have
any grounds that animals can think about whether they are a dominant species or worry about
survival of the species. They strive for survival, procreation etc. through instinct, as do we by the way.

You might have a point that against the backdrop of what we would do anyway because our instinct
drives us, human beings are additionally able to 'rationalise' their actions ascribing them to other
motives i.e. for the greater good, because it is God's will etc. etc. However a philosophical approach
would be to recognize our instinctive tendencies as well as the need to 'look good' and to think for
oneself on which basis rational behaviour of oneself/ human beings should be based, and how to
argue for that basis in such a way that it is convincing and acceptable for all rational persons.

Helene Dumitriu

That's an interesting idea — why should mankind not be as egoistic as any sort of plant or animal is
by it's very nature? The answer is: Man isas egoistic, but then he is so terribly strong with his smart
technology that he is endangering the very precondition of his existence (at least up to now) — nature
itself.

Maybe mankind won't need nature any more in another 100 years. Maybe the earth will then look like
the moon or the mars today, but with men dwelling in big towers with every comfort of living, the food
being generated in biochemical processes and plants and animals being hatched and brought up in
glasshouses.

The problem up to most recent times was to protect mankind from nature. Now the problem seems to
be how to protect nature from mankind.

Nature is a very big system of open feedback-loops of the wolves-sheep type: If there are too many
wolves, then the number of sheep goes back and more wolves starve. Then the number of sheep
goes up again and the number of wolves likewise. In principle such could be — and sometimes has
been locally or regionally — the fate of men too: If there are too many people in some area and some
flood or drought or illness destroys part of the plants and animals men are living on, then people
starve like the hungry wolves. So in principle there can be the case that the whole system of nature
crashes before mankind got to be independent of it and then the whole of mankind has to starve. But
nobody knows for sure what it takes to crash nature. Will the glasshouse-effect do? Will
overpopulation do? We don't know.

Hubertus Fremerey

39