If you are not reading Wesley Smith's blog Human Exceptionalism, you should be.
This clip reminds me of Wesley's quote on Starbucks cup The Way I See It #127 (which sits on my desk holding a variety of writing implements):
The morality of the 21st century will depend on how we respond to this simple but profound question: Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human? Answer yes, and we have a chance of achieving universal human rights. Answer no, and it means that we are merely another animal in the forest.
Wesley is completely correct. If we do accept that humans are "just another animal in the forest" then we will behave as animals with all the dog-eat-dog savagery found in nature.
I assure you that no other animal is concerned with the extinction of another species. Maybe, just maybe, humans fret about the disappearance of other species and spend time and money to prevent such an occurrence because we were created to be stewards of nature.
If we are just a culmination of random mutations fighting for survival in a battle of genetic fitness, then why do we care?
I find it interesting that both radical environmentalism and transhumanism suffer from the same pathology: man is inherently bad and irredeemable. They propose different solutions. The radical environmentalist says we need to become extinct; the transhumanist insists we need to radically transform ourselves into the "posthuman."
In one essay, transhumanist Ronald Bailey called natural, unenhanced man "incompetent," "unproductive," "stupid," "disease-ridden," and "unstable."
Humans are bad. Either die out or change so as to no longer be human.
Contrast that to the Christian message: Sure we are flawed but God loves you. He created you in His image. Through Him you can be whole. No need to kill yourself or change your genetic make-up.
One guess as to which philosophy will actually make a kinder and gentler world.