We recognize that the welfare of all living creatures (be it a frog or human) are of equal importance. This is juxtaposed to speciesism, which values one animal over another. This concept is fundamentally flawed on many levels and is presented with a dose of the irrational. We were all born to be slaughtered. No sentient being is immune. Without humans, other animals will continue to suffer just like they have been for millions of years. The main difference between human and non-human species is our capacity to understand the futility of existence and right from wrong. We have the intellectual ability to see the meat grinder for what it really is. We are all in this rat maze together.
The best interest of humans are in conflict with nature. If we stay alive to try solving suffering in all organisms in the universe then we ourselves will be forced to remain in suffering. And we don't even know if its possible to solve all suffering, its not a guarantee. Is it right to force our own kind to suffer for an indefinite amount of time chasing a gargantuan and potentially impossible to solve task? What makes us morally obligated to complete such a task, the accident of our cognition?
The answer is simple.
Only by looking at the core of the psychology of sentient beings can you determine who's the biased one and who's the realist. Think about why the zebras chases any feel good moment. Because it would feel deprivation from not having those moments. Just like you. You think the zebra eats mainly for the taste? No, it eats because it's fucking hungry. Just like both you and the zebra are hungry for satisfactory moments. The core of the game is suffering and avoiding it as much as you can. We are addicted to being whipped less than usually. It makes wayyy too much sense when you consider that an efficient psychology in evolution isn't one that is happy. It's one that gets the job done. And for this, you need an animal that is motivated to do shit, never truly being satisfied. We exist to WANT to be happy/in peace, not to BE happy. And life constantly imposes suffering onto us, problems with have to deal with. The brain is a problem solving machine. It's a zero sum game, a scam.
This is where Gary, or "Inmendham" comes into play.
I largely consider this man to be a public intellectual to the highest degree. I have never seen a man that argues so efficiently for any sort of philosophical or ethical position as he does. His logic is irrefutable and cannot be argued against without resorting to fallacies of all sorts. There is no piercing his rationale, for it is the answer to our woes by adding finality to the existential dilemma.
Our nervous systems are hardwired to experience suffering far more than pleasure; both in intensity and duration. This brutal functionality of nature motivates all species to stay alive long enough to pass their DNA to the next generation. This would also explain why sex is so pleasurable. Life evolved to torture and to be tortured. We are all victims and predators. There is no justification for nature’s cruel design. It’s wasteful, needless, and causes suffering. As Gary puts it, “life is more friction than function”. With knowledge comes responsibility. We must be janitorial, not wasteful in our endeavor to eliminate harm. As far as the red button scenario goes, I wouldn’t press it unless it painlessly and instantaneously evaporated all life on Earth, from men to microbes. And only if pressing that button had a guaranteed failsafe that would prevent life from re-emerging.