Species Superiority and the Rights of Nature
Click Here if you listened. We’d love to know what you think. There is even a spot for feedback! Read along below!
By: Ross Conrad
In last month’s Bee Culture article, I mentioned the recent granting of legal rights to stingless bees in the Peruvian Amazon. The granting of rights to nature, or parts of nature, inevitably raises questions among readers regarding the legitimacy of what has become a global rights-of-nature movement.
Granting rights to nature is in direct conflict with the conventional wisdom that humans are the most superior species on the planet. This movement challenges the Western tradition of basing rights solely on human individuals (and by extension to human created entities such as corporations).
Additionally, the granting of rights to nature has the potential to undermine human rights. Some may see it as a demotion of human constitutional and statutory rights in favor of offsetting rights for ecosystems, plants and animals.
It can also create conflicts with human property rights and economic development. Nature’s rights could be weaponized by humans to harass enemies, harm business competitors, hold up government initiatives, and prevent housing and infrastructure projects.
These concerns stem from the idea that humans, and our needs and desires should come before those of non-humans. However, is it possible that such anthropocentric views are in essence, a form of prejudice or biased attitude that favors our own species over all others? In our current world-view, those that have rights count and those that do not have rights do not. Only human life has intrinsic value and all other life forms are seen as resources that may be justifiably exploited for the benefit of human kind.
Human Superiority Complex
This belief is deeply held within Western culture. It is embedded in many of our Western religious teachings going back thousands of years. Mankind is dominant over all other animals (and plants) on earth. We even like to think that we sit at the top of the food chain.
This conviction is manifest every time we level a mountain for its coal, clear-cut a forest for its timber, or kill a honey bee colony by “pinching” the queen because the hive no longer meets our definition of being worthy of existence.
One writer describes this tendency as a “Human superiority complex’ that “gives humans a sense of dominion over the rest of nature, set apart from and entitled to commodify the Earth and other species for their own exclusive use” (Pattison, 2025).
A Closer Look
When we start to look at the superiority of the human race objectively, confidence in this perspective is undermined. We don’t like to admit it but we are really not that different from other animals. We spring from and live on the same planet. Our bodies are composed of the same elements. We are impacted by environmental and evolutionary pressures just like all other animals. Every creature on earth has had to adapt to their ecosystem in order to survive, including us.
We have countless examples of species developing unique evolutionary adaptations that allow them to survive. For example, whales can communicate directly with each other over hundreds and even thousands of miles–the cheetah can go from zero to sixty in about three seconds and can run at maximum speeds of around 75 miles per hour in short bursts – the honey bee produces a food that when properly stored can last a thousand years. These are magnificent feats that are unique to these species alone. But they are all things we humans are also able to achieve. Thanks to technology, not only can we do things other animals can do, but we can do things no other species can do, such as travel to the moon and back. But is this really a sign of species superiority?
The fact is, we humans are one of the most vulnerable species on the planet. We are much weaker than other animals our size. We are much slower compared to most other species. We do not have large sharp teeth and claws so we are unable to defend ourselves easily. Our sense of sight, smell and hearing are not as acute as most other species. We don’t even have thick fur to protect us from the cold. Physically we are amazingly ill-equipped for survival.
Homo sapiens have only survived through our unique evolutionary adaptation of a large brain and opposing thumbs. Is it possible we are confusing our unique evolutionary adaptation (advance intellect – combined with our ability to manipulate the environment) with species superiority?
How do we know unique accomplishments are an indication of species superiority? For example: some species of frogs (e.g. the Alaskan Wood Frog) are able to produce a form of biological anti-freeze that allows their bodies to go into a state of suspended animation in freezing temperatures and then thaw out and revive when temperatures rise. This is a form of cryogenic preservation we humans have so far been unable to accomplish despite our technological advances. You will not find many people who think that frogs should be considered one of the most superior species on Earth. Clearly, we apply the criteria of species superiority based upon unique abilities unevenly. We favor it in ourselves while downplaying, ignoring, or marginalizing it in others.
Considering ourselves to be the most superior species on the planet certainly boosts the ego and can provide us with an inflated sense of self-importance. But would we really feel this sense of superiority if we could remove our subjectivity from the equation?
Imagine we discovered another planet with millions of species living on it. Upon studying this planet, we find that there is only one species among the millions living there that trains members of another species to viciously attack members of their own species. This species is also the only organism on the planet that is systematically destroying the life support systems of their world. This ecological destruction and degradation threatens the survival of the majority of life on the planet and is causing a dramatic increase in the rate of species extinction. Would we really consider this theoretical species to be the most superior species on that planet?
Is Science Helping or Hurting?
Anthropomorphism (attributing human characteristics to non-humans) is a common criticism in science. This occurs despite evidence of animals showing what we would call human-like traits. Animals have been documented expressing what appears to be love, caring and compassion for others and their young, sadness and mourning over the death of another, use of tools and advanced planning, and happiness and joy while participating in what looks like play and having fun.
When we attribute human characteristics to animals however, we are accused of no longer being objective. But what if the human traits we sometimes think we see reflected in animals are actually animal traits we humans recognize and experience in ourselves? How do we know which traits are uniquely human ones?
In one scientific article, the authors state: “…our inability to define, to measure, or to observe human-equivalent processes in animals, cannot preclude their existence. In other words, while anthropomorphism is wrong, it is equally wrong to assume that whatever we cannot observe or measure does not exist…We believe that the natural tendency of using our human experiences when thinking about animals (i.e., the tendency to anthropomorphize) can actually be harnessed productively to generate hypotheses regarding cognitive mechanisms and their evolution” (Arbilly & Lotem, 2017).
Nature writer and wildlife photographer Hayley Kinsey states things more bluntly: “The very idea that there’s a batch of traits, skills and emotions that “belong” to humans is arrogance. This arrogance slows the progress of science, our understanding, and our reconnection with the natural world.
“I don’t think we should automatically assume that another being experiences something in the same way we do, or does something for the same reasons we would – but I also don’t think we should assume that they don’t…Western science’s hatred of anthropomorphism is species superiority dressed up as scientific impartiality” (Kinsey, 2023).
Interestingly, there is some published research that suggests animals and humans are more alike than we like to think. “The similarity of biases found in humans and other animals suggests that the underlying source of those biases may be based on basic evolved mechanisms that affect the behavior of many organisms, rather than factors unique to human evolution or the influence of culture” (Zentall, 2023).
The Foundation of Human Rights and Freedom
It has also been theorized that the granting of rights to nature to help secure a healthy natural environment is necessary to secure the foundation of human freedom. This is because a strong argument can be made that a healthy natural environment is required for human rights to exist in the first place. “Human dignity without respect and consideration for nature (in all its life forms) remains meaningless in view of the fact that human beings cannot exist without their natural context. Similarly, the genuine exercise of freedom is only possible within the real ecological scope that exists; respecting this scope does not limit freedom, but rather establishes it. And property without social and ecological ties makes the rich even richer, the poor even poorer and ultimately has a destructive effect on society. Rights of Nature therefore do not stand alongside human rights and do not compete with them, but serve to redefine their content” (Bosselmann, 2025).
According to Bosselmann, “In view of the ecological crisis and in the age of the Anthropocene, ecology-blind legal systems are therefore doomed to failure. Ultimately, they deprive people of their ability to survive. This will only change when property is no longer ecologically blind and thus destructive of nature, but integrated into ecology.”
Indigenous cultures have a different world view than those of us raised in Western cultures and to date the global efforts to grant rights to other species and even entire ecosystems, has been primarily led by indigenous people. This includes Ecuador’s constitutional amendment which grants inalienable right to ecosystems to exist and flourish (2008), and the granting of legal personhood to rivers and mountains in New Zealand (2017).
Establishing and respecting the rights of nature is sometimes seen as necessary to preserve the integrity of the Earth’s ecosystems. Ecological integrity is enshrined as the overarching goal in over two dozen international environmental agreements: including Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration of 1992 (“to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystems”), and the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 (Preamble, Articles 4 and 6).
Given these considerations, granting rights to honey bees or any other part of nature may not be so inappropriate. Rather than the rights of bees and nature being viewed as an affront to our being, perhaps we should see this movement as a ray of hope. Something that has the potential to save us from some of the worst aspects of ourselves.
Ross Conrad will be teaching beginner and intermediate organic beekeeping classes in May. Visit dancingbeegardens.com for more information.
References:
Arbilly, M. & Lotem, A. (2017) Constructive anthropomorphism: a functional evolutionary approach to the study of human-like congnitive mechanisms in animals, Proceedings B, The Royal Society, 284:1865
Bosselmann, Klaus (2025) Seven Points on Rights of Nature, Heinrich Bӧll Stiftung
Kinsey, Hayley (2023) The unexpected truth about anthropomorphism, accessed online January 18, 2026
Pattison, Kermit (2025) Human exceptionalism is at the root of the ecological crisis: Saving the planet requires getting over ourselves, argues author of ‘The Arrogant Ape’, The Harvard Gazette
Sanders, Robert (2023) Speciesism, like racism, imperils humanity and the planet, UC Berkeley Research, accessed online January 15, 2026
Webb, Christine (2025) The Arrogant Ape: The myth of human exceptionalism and why it matters, Avery ISBN-13: 978-0593543153
Zentall, Thomas, R. (2023) Review: Comparative cognition research demonstrates the similarity between humans and other animals, Animals 13:1165 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071165
