When antibiotics are given to a human in order to combat a disease, the result is that in order to save one human life, millions of microscopic organisms may be wiped out. So, one can certainly subscribe to the notion that human life is worth no more than that of a bacteria, and depending on how you look at it, this may be true. But that person shouldn't take medicines that fight infections, if they don't want to be accused of being hypocritical.
There is no hypocrisy in my words, or beliefs. whether I eat meat to live, or take anti-biotics to survive an infection doesn't change the fact that our lives are equal. whether I am eaten, or whether I eat, both lives are essentially the same. When a Tiger kills a human being because it is hungry does that make the tiger evil?
I'm not disagreeing with you that in that respect all life is equal.
I'm not really in disagreement about any of your statements, nor was I making a personal attack.
In fact, it seems I may have misinterpreted your statement.
With regards to the insect to human ratio, I was speaking about Earth.
If you know of any other places where there are humans, well, that certainly might change the odds.
Regarding the rarity of being born human,
and the statement that only humans can practice dharma,
I was referring to what is taught. And there are logical reasons for this assertion, that bugs can't practice dharma. Theoretically it may be possible, but generally, it appears they are too preoccupied with basic survival.
Moraility is subjective and otherwise arbitrary, and relative. but this also raises the question of whether or not one suffers any consequences from intentional "negative actions" if one feels no remorse.
But again, karma has less to do with the action itself, that with the motivation behind the action,
and it is actually that motivation which produces the results of the action, not the action itself.
In the post you responded to, I began:"...That all depends on the criteria.
So, it's not absolutely true. It's only relatively true.
"superior to" and "more important than" are not necessarily relevant criteria, and thus, not necessarily the basis for why the karma for killing a human might be considered greater.
In this respect, you are right. it makes little difference whether one kills a mosquito or a human as far as ending up with one less creature is concerned.
But, using a different criteria, killing humans is (almost always) worse. One of the reasons why is that the motivation is often intense anger or hatred, although these days (in the United States, anyway) people do not need to much of a reason to shoot someone. So, that reasoning too may change.