(I have a feeling you haven’t been reading all of my posts, if you did you would know [but perhaps I‘m not being clear], and you probably won’t read this one either anyway, but nevertheless I digress)
Stay with me, I’m going to try to break this down. Taylor, I assume you believe in evolution, correct?

If you do then you understand that you are a product of the Earth. You should also understand that you are among other products of the Earth (other animals). At what point do you have the right to kill another animal? Nature would say (and it is correct) you gain the right to kill another animal when it becomes necessary to sustain your own life.

Now keep in mind that we don’t even really have the “right,” I am using the term “right” for clarity reasons. A better word would be “need” or “necessity.” We don’t have the "right" because nature is cruel, and we simply have to steal and take rather it be lives or property, because that is simply how the natural world is set up, so a “right” is nowhere to be found in nature with only one exception, “the right to life,” and even it is more of a subjective pseudo-right. The fact that we use our “right” (need) to take another creatures “right” (life) is in itself a contradiction. Do you see the problem? The fact that one animal has a “right” to life does not over-justify another animal’s "right" to life. Natural evolution has put animals in the situation of “do or die,” “kill or be killed.”

Now do you agree that we are ourselves natural animals of Earth? If you do then you realize we are on the exact same level as other animals when it comes to existence. But I hope you do realize that we have escaped nature. If you don’t agree, then you have to agree that we have at least escaped the majority of its cruelty. Why have only we escaped and no other animals? The answer is we were fortunate enough to evolve more advanced then other animals (we evolved so drastically because positive adaptations compound the evolutionary process, thereby multiplying the complexity of our development). And we use these advantages against other animals despite our ability not to. This doesn’t seem wrong to you? The term defining this is “specist” the same as racist, I assume you get it?

The point is, once you realize that all creatures of Earth are on the same cosmic level, you then realize that we are not so different than they, and that it is our duty to share the Earth with them, and the fact that we have the ability to help them should be all the more reason to share the Earth with all other llife. Because we have escaped the natural dilemma of nature. The animals haven’t. So why do we continue to live by nature's cruel set up?

If we gain the ability to make something better, and it positively affects us in the long run, why do we neglect this ability? It would be logical to exercise this ability.

Now let me explain why it is our duty to take care of the earth and animals, and essentially not exploit them. You might be sitting there like, “how the hell is it my duty to not care only about my self? How is my duty to take care of the Earth and animals, they don‘t take care of me!” Well you see, by treating the Earth and other animals carefully we then assure the future of our own existence. You have to understand that one aspect of nature we haven’t escaped is the necessity to form symbiotic relationships of reciprocity. This is a natural law of Earth, and even the universe too. It has always been this way. This law was applied to us from the first day life spawned on this planet. You should understand that everything is energy and atoms and everything will remain energy and atoms as long as the universe exists as it does. That is why this law exists because all atoms are dependent on each other to ever come together and for anything ever to happen. Now simply amplify the idea. All things depend on each other because everything breaks down to atoms. We often don’t realize how connected everything is. This is the barrier to our situation. People don’t realize this mega-picture. Therefore we tend to only think about ourselves, and that is okay because that is how natural evolution has set it up. But you see, by maintaining this symbiotic relationship with all things, we then become safe. If we don't respond this Law of Symbiosis and Reciprocity, then we are doomed. It may seem like I’m just trying to be “moral” and simply give to everything, but actually the root of my argument is a selfish one. Nature has made it necessary to be selfish, because if you are not selfish you will not survive. If we do not change our ways we will disrupt this necessary natural symbiosis, and we therefore we would be actually be going against our self-interest. This makes the argument logical.

So let me try to tie everything together. The fact that all life is one organism, means that we must keep it alive, and the only way to do that is be responsible and wise. We have to think very deeply about our position in nature and try to foresee the effects of our actions. The path we are taking now is unwise and irresponsible. Because if we do what I have elaborated, then we will progress further into a positive future and a sustainable existence. Furthermore, this whole lecture is a philosophy of self interest. Because remember, self interest has been an element of Earth's nature since the beginning.

Take into consideration this quote from Carl Sagan:

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”

It’s my favorite quote of all time and it is so true. It really helps put our existence into perspective.

Now remember, in the beginning of this response I mentioned that the problem is that you think only of yourself as having value by thinking the way you do. We have to realize that everything (primarily life) has equal value and that we are not the only ones. Nature has made it hard for us to properly understand life's value because we are naturally self-interested when it comes down it. But by supporting our environment and other life, we satisfy this self-interest because we ensure our own existence. But we have to remind ourselves that as we grow more intelligent we become obligated to relay it back to the value of life and use our intelligence to make it better for all life. If we do this it will make our life better as a result.

Basically it is the same concept you have about only caring about yourself, except the concept has been intellectualized to serve a wiser purpose. In the long run, it is self-interested, but it would make everything better. This ideology tends to seem "moral" but it is clearly a logical argument.

This probably wasn’t clear or developed enough. If not let me know.

This probably wasn’t clear or developed enough. If not let me know.

GET MY FUCKING POINT. This isn't about morals, it's about something I call "collective logic." That is the most logical understanding that considers "all" to apply to "all." The foundation of our society is not logical.