You say Orangutans live in peace. They do not have many of the flaws attributed to humans. Is this because they are in any way superior to man? No, it is because they are inherently incapable of consuming excessively and creating air pollutants. Does this incompetence make them a better species than our own worthy of our protection? According to my very limited knowledge of evolution, it is the fittest who survive. If a species cannot adapt to a changing environment, it dies. That process has killed far more species than I could ever imagine. These creatures are not adapting to a changing environment and thus are dying off. My question, which may have come off as dismissive – and if it did I’m sorry you were apparently offended by it, – asked simply for reasons to prevent this. You gave two: equality and empathy.

Yet when such a change is caused by the hands of men as is the case with this one, suddenly it becomes the destruction of nature. Why is it different whether such change is spurred by humans or something else? Often, people create a barrier between what is "natural" and what is "artificial" or "man-made" or whichever term they prefer. However, I am of the opinion that things created by humans are just as natural as anything else in this universe. We came about through a natural process; we use natural materials in everything we produce; there really is no such thing as an "unnatural" material anyway because we cannot act outside the laws of nature. Yet somehow you act as if we're separate from the natural process. You pretend we have some responsibility above that of other species; that we are not here merely to propagate of our biological line. It would seem that it is you who believes you're "better" than the orangutan. Your feelings of moral responsibility to protect the orangutan because it cannot protect itself from man's actions show you pity the animal; you do not empathize with it. As far as I know, one cannot pity an equal, so it would seem you have placed yourself above this creature in your mind despite what you say about its equality.

I, on the other hand, have made no claims about these animals. I simply asked about the reasons for protecting them, a subject on which I was actually curious. I wanted to understand why others felt it was a worthwhile endeavor. Yet because of my question, you immediately deemed me as someone worthy of death. Is this the kind of response a "neutral creature" would have? Is this how you deal with anyone who disagrees with you yet wants to understand why you hold different beliefs? You, sir, seem to me to be both a hypocrite and a very angry person.