I think this is ultimately the best argument in here - that sapience ain't necessarily so great, and any whinging about it being a moral imperative is ultimately just promoting how great intelligence is, which we just happen to dominate in (how very colonial of us). There's not a particular way of being that is any greater or lesser, and there's an inherent value to being that we should respect regardless of "intelligence".
That said... we're not saying we need to respect the natural world any less, or need to force sapience on all animals. We might just want to give some the ability to reach our level (however good or bad it might be) and converse with them honestly. Otherwise, how are we ever going to have a moral answer on the value of sapience, if we're the only ones who ever have it?
That said... we're not saying we need to respect the natural world any less, or need to force sapience on all animals. We might just want to give some the ability to reach our level (however good or bad it might be) and converse with them honestly. Otherwise, how are we ever going to have a moral answer on the value of sapience, if we're the only ones who ever have it?