In Defense of Human Rights by A. H. Sobczak I approve in principle of protecting animals' rights and of the major goals of environmentalism. What I find disturbing, however, is that animal rights advocates and environmentalists often appear to overlook the effect that their programs have on human rights. Sensible people must remember that scarcity exists and that it is usually impossible to get more of something without giving up something else. The goals of environmentalism and animal rights often conflict with life for human beings. Some system of weighting goals is needed. What frightens me is that the rest of the environment seems to be winning in the battle for recognition of rights, at the expense of humanity. There are some cases in which the benefit to humanity of an action is clearly not worth the cost to the animal kingdom or environment. It was sensible, I believe, for cosmetics companies to ban animal testing. There were ways of avoiding what amounted to cruelty to animals without significant cost in human lives. Strip mining of coal might be a similar case, in which the harm to the environment was not outweighed by the gains to humanity. Again, public outcry ended an unreasonable practice. I fear that these easy cases have developed momentum for animal rights groups and environmentalists. This momentum may carry their cause too far. Difficulties begin when we try to analyze whom or what to protect. Saving the snail darter or the spotted owl will cost humans their jobs and livelihoods, as well as places to live. Surely those humans harmed will find new jobs and different homes, but the question remains whether the harm to them is worth saving the habitat of another species. This question may seem easy. On the face of it, it appears difficult or impossible to justify exterminating a species just to make life a little easier for a few humans, or to save them from some inconvenience. However, before we are overcome with guilt, we must also ask why that species was already so near extinction. Why is it that the spotted owl or snail darter is found in so few locations? Choosing to save a species becomes not only a question of animal rights versus human rights but also a question of tampering with evolution. As members of evolution's finest product, we should hesitate before interfering with the process. If humanity's activities are the sole or most important cause of distress to a species, then aid to that species does appear morally obligatory. If we as a species were the cause of the demise of the spotted owl, for example, it might appear that we have a duty to protect and resuscitate that species. Again there are problems with this conception of obligation. If we save one species, are others affected? What of the prey of the spotted owl? Another recent case of promotion of animal rights was that of tuna fishing. Animal rights activists protested successfully against the use of drift nets, which captured dolphins as well as tuna. The argument most often proffered was that dolphins are an intelligent species that should be protected. Two obvious problems arise. First, those protecting the dolphins were again arguing that we should make an evolutionary choice (in favor of dolphins at the expense of tuna), with the inherent difficulties mentioned above. Second, if higher intelligence is to be prized, then a priori human rights should take precedence over animal rights and rights of the environment. I would find it difficult to argue to a dying person that his or her death is inevitable because it would not have been right to perform more animal research on drugs that might have cured that person's disease. Surely some tests are completely unnecessary and should certainly be eliminated. But what about those that add some small chance of survival, or even more comfortable existence, to even just a few people? It is a delicate balance, but we must not forget to include human rights in that balance. Time is an unlimited resource for a species, unless that species is nearing extinction. Time then takes a low position in the hierarchy of goods to be protected. For an individual, however, time is the most severely constrained of resources. Is it not then allowable to try to extend that time, or to make it more comfortable, or to avoid spending unnecessary time on joyless tasks? When the individual is considered in addition to the group, again it becomes plausible and defensible to argue in favor of actions that benefit humans, even in seemingly trivial ways and even in the face of harm to animals or the environment. Who is the environment being saved for? If the answer is the plants and animals that live in it, some questions are raised: Which plants and animals? What gives humanity the right to play at being God and choosing the favored species? Why favor species other than Homo Sapiens? If the answer is that we are saving the environment for future generations of people, different questions are raised: How much change must we suppress to satisfy this moral itch? How far ahead do we look? To what degree are we cursing our ancestors for environmental degradation and destruction of species? How far back do our curses go? In either case, "saving" the animals and environment does not appear to be as clear an overriding goal as it does at first glance. Surely there is room for environmentalism and for the protection of animal rights within a sensible moral code. At the same time, human rights should also be respected. There is nothing to be ashamed of in asking for the same rights that we as a species seem willing to grant to all other species.