>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
>>>>
>>>>"Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans."
>>>>
>>>>What a looney.
>>>
>>>You think the planet needs humans? For what?
>>
>>Humans are the best known predictors of the future. Any way the planet could benefit from human foresight would be lost if there were no humans.
>>
>>For example, predicting and possibly diverting the next mass-extinction-causing asteroid impact. Or, if impact is inevitable, prepare as best as possible.
>
>I think you've just moved the argument from the definition of 'need' to the definition of 'benefit' :-}
>
>Surely 'need' is essentially a psychological definition. The planet is incapable of 'needing' anything. If someone says the planet 'needs' something what they really mean is 'I need the planet to have something for my benefit;'

The ability to "need" depends on your definition of the "planet". If you're referring to a sterile ball of rock, then yes, it's not capable of any "need". The thin biological skin on its surface, however, definitely has needs in order to survive.

So, the question really is whether the thin biological skin is part of the planet. I think it is.

Your last sentence is a useful first lens through which to view claims made by environmentalists etc.; but altruism is at least theoretically possible.