AIS wrote:

Let's follow this argument. Whatever reason is given why idea creation is worthy of protection against extermination, the fact that we the idea creators are ourselves the results partly also of the actions of species in the past with complex nervous systems and brains could be seen as a proof that their use of their brain- and not just the information encoded in their genes- makes them worthy of the same protection. (after all that was the point of evolving brains in the first place. Genes alone couldn't handle the complexity of the environment efficiently enough). Even lower forms of life who are basically nothing but their genetic code, aren't they themselves each an embodiment of a separate idea?

The point of evolving brains was to process information quickly according to particular set theories contained in their genes. For example, a beaver's brain processes information about where logs are how a particular log should be carved so that it fits into his dam and so on. But the beaver can't understand how to make a dam from other materials. His theories on how to ake a dam are fixed by his genes and don't change. As such, he is interchangeable with other beavers.

As for the assertion that a given worm, Fred, is unique this seems obviously false. The information on how to make any given worm is contained in worm genes, so we can make a worm that is identical to Fred in every respect through genetic engineering.