[AnotherUnixGeek]

What sets a gorilla or a whale above a frog, horse, fish, or bacterium?

In both cases, rarity and intelligence. The world will not be a better place with no gorillas or whales in it, nor will it be to humanity's credit that we annihilate the few creatures with intelligence approaching ours. Even if you're religious, it's hard to envision the deity of any religion applauding such an action.

[Red in Blue PA]

Well said. Amazing that everyone cannot agree on that as a simple baseline.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

It definitely isn't a good thing that some species (or even genera) are going extinct because of humans killing them, and over the rarity thing, if the animal is a rarity (and not just a slight one: i.e. it is a subspecies with a very similar sibling subspecies that is not even close to going extinct.) then effort should be made to preserve it. As for intelligence, that shouldn't be so much a factor (opinion--obviously). Intelligence is not sentience.

It is conceivable that a robot could be created with an intelligence far (FAR) surpassing even the most intelligent human creature. That wouldn't give the robot [inherently] more of a right to life than a squirrel (or a gorilla). It is because of the robot's usefulness that gives the robot the 'right' to stick around.

This could seem callously cruel, but animals, including gorillas, are in the service of man. Mankind has a duty to be a good steward (such as not wantonly killing animals on a whim), but it comes down to usefulness.

For the great apes, since their ecological niche is (somewhat) already taken by humans, from a 'cold' and rational viewpoint, it is not vital to keep them alive. That is not to type that they should be killed without reason or that humans should not try to keep their species alive--within reason. But if they do go extinct, given the current information about ecology, the world will keep on going without great apes in the picture.