Humanity benefits Earth like no other species

The argument

Proponents of this position begin from a claim about what is distinctive in human beings rather than about what is merely useful about them. Humans bring to the world an advanced level of reason and understanding that, on this view, no other species possesses. The decisive part of that capacity is reflexive: humans can question the merits of their own existence in a critical way, turning the faculty of understanding back upon the creature that has it. Other species live; humanity, on this account, is the part of the world that asks what living is for. From that capacity flow the goods the argument treats as irreplaceable. Art, literature, music and painting are not incidental by-products of human intelligence but the forms in which this reflective understanding is given shape. Science is the same capacity directed outwards, dedicated to understanding the marvels of the universe. Supporters of the position stress that none of these goods would pass to some other bearer if humanity vanished. If humans were to die off there would be no more art, no more literature, no more music or painting, and no more science; not less of them, but none, because nothing else on Earth produces them. The conclusion drawn is that humanity represents something of an awakening moment for the universe — the point at which a cosmos that had gone unexamined came to be examined from within. Extinction would therefore not merely end one species among many. It would close the only window through which, so far as this argument's proponents can tell, the universe has come to know itself, and it would close it permanently, since the capacity is not distributed elsewhere. That loss, on this view, is sufficient on its own, without appeal to any further harm: for that reason alone the extinction of the human race on planet Earth would be a tragedy.

Context

The very fact that we as humans are having this question demonstrates that we bring something to this earth that no other species do.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This presumes a significant knowledge gap between humans and other animals. It supposes that we are in fact the only species on the planet that engages in reasoned thought and the only species on the planet that creates art and carries out scientific experiments. Elephants and whales routinely display empathy. Vogelkop bowerbirds create art displays to woo females, with precise sculptures build not for their structural merits, but their artistic ones. Many species possess number-like skills and the basis for which humans developed mathematical understanding. We are not as unique as many believe. Therefore, we do not offer something no other species does, and it would not be a tragedy if we died out.

Rejecting the premises

P1: Humans are not the only species that have these capabilities.