We can only have multiple futures – possibilities of alternatives – when we can acknowledge that the future of human species is not the future for other species, and encompass the inherent value of other species and their futures, some of which are interconnected to humans.

Biologist, Lynn Margulis, presents an existential reality to me: Life forms such as bacteria can outlive us (human species). They were here before us, arising as the first form of life – out of which all other life forms sprang out across billions of years – and they can thrive after we die.

Thus, due to this simple existential reality, I cannot ignore other forms of life when thinking about futures. I would like a future inclusive of various species where they can flourish together.

So, when thinking about the future, whose future are we concerned with? I purposefully prefer to use the plural form of future as we should not have one future – for one group, race, or species. Otherwise we risk running into the problem of choosing which lives are more valuable over others, which determine whose future is the most important.

Human narcissism 

Unfortunately, we are currently living in an anthropocentric era – an age where the human species has positioned itself as superior to other species. Of course, within the human species, we are faced with great inequalities between races and genders for instance. However, I am taking a wider step – momentarily zooming out of identity politics.

In this context, thinking about “our” future, seems to inexplicitly concern a certain idea about who “we” are. Generally speaking, “our” refers to oneself and its wider relations, mostly composed of other humans. Again, I am aware of the dangers of using the term “we” to refer to all humans, when not all humans, for instance Black people are considered to be fully human. However, in this case, I must use the term “we” for the human species when relating them to other species.

For instance, different generations can question their future, from the perspective of their individuality, social circle and wider age group. Various generations will have different concerns informed by cultural and social reality, such as the impact of climate change, questions of extinction, possibility of space travel, lack of resources and a crashing economy. 

However, mainstream cases of thinking about “our future” are blanketed thoughts concerning the narcissistic survival, flourishing of human species, and its ways of being (often at the cost of other species).

Intrinsic value 

Human’s believe that its own survival is of vital importance. I do not deny this as human life is inherently valuable. However, humans must not be mistaken to assume that their survival is more valuable than other forms of life.

The “last man” argument shows us why there is something wrong about damaging ecosystems that are independent of humans. Why should the last person living go about destroying forests or ecosystems? This points to an inherent value to other forms of life and systems – even if they are not tied to humans. Read “the last man example” for more information.

There is a difference between something having value for its own sake and something having value for the sake of something else. I am emphasising on the former.

Ethical decisions

Thus, in the process of figuring out our futures, I would like to broaden “our” to encompass other species. I believe we cannot have a future that is independent of other species as we are all interrelated. We should thus make our relations explicit in our decision-making processes and think about how future-facing decisions might impact these other species that might be involved. 

Therefore, considering the value of other species in making important decisions can lead to a more ethical way of figuring out futures, opening alternative futures that are inclusive of other lives on this beautiful planet, where they all have an inherent right to exist.

Written by Venya Patel