By stipulation, the human superiority thesis consists of two claims: (a) the interests of humans should be given preferential consideration relative to the like interests of nonhuman animals, and (b) the lives of humans are more valuable than the lives of nonhuman animals. In his recent book, Mark Bernstein argues that both claims are false. I present and assess Bernstein's main arguments, pointing out where they succeed and where they fall short. I then suggest ways of shoring up and strengthening these arguments. So augmented, Bernstein's arguments provide a compelling case for rejecting both human superiority thesis claims.