singer's potential

Singer conjures up a very interesting debate in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation. Singer makes a case for equal consideration among all beings. He believes that the interests of all beings capable of suffering should be worthy of equal consideration. Animals should then have rights based on their ability to suffer. Even further, Singer claims consideration should not be preferential to intelligence. He extends this to the fact that although animals show lower intelligence than most humans, many mentally handicapped humans can show similar lower mental capacities to that of animals. Subsequently, we should not put humans as a whole above animals nor should we give animals any less consideration than mentally handicapped humans.
First of all, I think that Singers arguments are very noteworthy, provocative and thought-provoking. However, unfortunately, he is too radical in some of his claims and too narrowly individualistic to capture and inspire an influential environmental ethic that is needed today. With Singer’s arguments, it seems as though he argues for the individual and not the whole with the idea of equal consideration of each being. However, in our environmental realm now, we must see things in terms of ecosystems and processes. His view of an animal centered philosophy ignores the concept of species as a whole, as we need to pay equal consideration to each being. How do we deal with endangered species? If we are only to consider beings equally, does this mean that we should be considering a fly just as much as a whole species of endangered giant pandas?
Another claim that is a bit extreme that loses an ability to inspire a wide spread environmental ethic is his indifference, or what some might consider lack of respect, to some humans, especially the mentally handicapped. This is a very slippery slope in defining who is a “person.” Additionally, another argument that puts Singer at a disadvantage and loses a strong following is his belief that because animals have the ability to feel pain and pleasure, this then puts them on a plane of moral equivalence with us and of equal consideration.
However, despite these criticisms, Singer provides a very interesting lens to look at animals rights in the environmental ethics realm. But, his strength lies in his ability to draw more on reason than those philosophers, such as Kant, who rely more on abstract principles of duty and obedience than pain and pleasure. Despite these strengths, Singer cannot inspire a true environmental ethic that will be adopted by many until his beliefs become more moderate and kept within the bounds of societal human values as a majority.