Endangered and Extinct Animals

[pokecole]

Recently in my biology class we've been talking about species diversity, extinction, and all that jazz. I think nearly everyone agrees that animals going extinct is a bad thing - it severely wounds biodiversity, (a wound that can't be healed) and can affect us economically by damaging our food supply as well as impacting our lives by preventing natural disasters, mainly floods.

While taking the test for the class over the chapter, I thought to myself, "What if we looked at the opposite side of this?". So that begs my question for debate. Can animals going extinct also be a good thing? Should we get involved in natural processes like this one?

My thoughts on the positive side of this is that preserving animals that aren't suited to survive in their environment could take resources from others, prevent evolution in the sense that better species may not be able to replace it, and that it stunts these natural processes.

Don't take me wrong here - I'm not saying, "Kill them all, what do I care", I'm just saying to think about the opposite side for a change. I figured I should be able to get a good, intellectual answer from the people here, as I've seen happen before.

Happy debating!

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Animals going extinct is a good thing - well, naturally that is. Going extinct through natural means is completely normal. Over 99% of species that ever lived are extinct today. Creatures that cannot survive will inevitably go extinct, and, while it's a sad story, it's really not anything that leads to something that's bad, just different - as long as other creatures who are more suitable for the environment persist, biodiversity will still be prevalent. Nowadays we have more biodiversity than the planet ever had.

I guess one way to look at it is look at how video game console designs have changed throughout the years. Some devices, like the Atari 2600, NES, and Playstation 2 were incredibly successful, and even today you can see things that other systems have adapted to get in on that success. Other designs, like the Virtual Boy, were not, and were "selected" out. The industry for software has changed over time as well - back 30 years ago, people were content with certain kinds of games which are not very successful these days. However, despite many failures, video game devices are more diverse than ever - ranging from simple electronics to powerful consoles to portable all-purpose phones.

The problem with current extinction is the fact that it's occurring too quickly. In fact, many scientists consider it an extinction event. Do I believe that, unhindered, the developments of this extinction event will destroy life on earth? No. However, I do believe that the consequences of these actions will certainly put the human population in jeopardy, and greatly reduce biodiversity. However, life will rebound, and within several million years it will reach its prior diversity. The most deadly extinction event ever, the P-T extinction event (right before the dinosaurs) killed 95% of marine and 75% of terrestrial species. Over 85% of genera at the time were completely wiped out. Scientists believe that recovery was complete about 30 million years after the event.

Frankly, I don't believe that the current extinction event will be that profound. Probably less than the one that killed the dinosaurs. It doesn't mean it's not important though.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I have a similar thread about this before issue before. There will be people who think the extinction event today is still a natural process, because man is the dominant species on the planet, and the endangered/extinct animals failed to adapt to our changes, thus making them inferior. They'll even go as to saying how they can be replaced by machines to keep biodiversity going without anything that's organic. Of course that's only a hypothetical belief, for I have yet to encounter someone with this kind of mindset on youtube, 4chan, reddit, or Facebook, but I can't deny that someone like that exists, and it would make a unique villain idea for an environmental movie or episode, but that's a bit off-topic.

It's issues like these are why misanthropists exist, and whether or not humans are inheriently born violent, we have made so many mistakes that even if we do try to stop what we're doing, it's already too late, as the problems are beyond repair, and the endangered animals whose numbers were decreased by human presence will never go back to the same population numbers it once had and will continue to decrease, seeing as the WWF keeps broadcasting the same tiger commerical for the past few years, which indicates that we still haven't learned our lesson.

 

[Entermaid]

Let's also think of bacteria which are the most populous living things.

When we take antibiotics (and abuse them), there is a genocide of bacteria within the biosphere of our bodies...this combined with sterile "clean" living environments of first world countries has led to a disparity of immune system resilience depending upon environment. (hygene hypothesis). This is an example of genocide and environment change which have negative health consequences.

Now, the question is, does the extinction of a species matter?

It depends upon the philosophical underpinnings. If you are assuming an anthropocentric viewpoint, then an animal's extinction is only consequential if the species serves a human function. Further, insects or birds that carry viruses/disease might serve human needs if eradicated. (You could also counter that diseases like malaria decreases population, and lower population is an anthropocentric goal.)


I am not a fan of those who argue for animal rights and biodiversity for its own sake. BUT, ecosystems are not resilient to human activity, the effects can in-turn negatively impact human life. That is a concern.

It was noted in the National Geographic that some fishermen campaigned for killing whales because they were threatening the fish supply and thus jobs and the fishing industry.

A chain of events eventually came full circle and led to a loss of jobs:

Here is a little paragraph about fishermen who were targeting young killer whales in order to reduce the population of killer whales eating all of the fish. Thus creating a loss in jobs. But, their actions had negative consequences to the environment, as well as jobs!

Spoiler:

The massive reduction in the local whale population meant killer whales in the region (usually preying on younger whales) moved to other animals such as seals;

As seal numbers declined, the killer whales targeted otters;

As otter numbers were decimated, the urchins and other targets of otters flourished;

These decimated the kelp forests where many fish larvae grew in relative protection;

The exposed fish larvae were easy pickings for a variety of sea life;

Fishermen's livelihoods were destroyed.

Especially at the top predator level, where there is very little diversity poaching has negative effects that trickle down since predators serve as a check on either the producers or non-carnivorous consumers. This disturbs stasis.

Protection (or genocide/reduction) of animals should be implemented when it effects human life in the form of healthy environment, furtherment of agricultural and cattle industries, enhancement of medicine, prevention of disease, to remedy an imbalance in the ecosystem, or something else that effects human happiness/stability.

In that sense, I think this prospective allows for contextual differences rather than stating biodiversity is good or bad arbitrarily. IF I had to guess, more often than not accelerated extinction (from the norm) can cause negative human consequences, but there is room for strategic reduction/augmentation of a species to serve anthropocentric purposes.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

I honestly think that to save certain animals from extinction, more needs to be done.
A recent example.
Lions are currently classified as "Vulnerable", but they're rapidly declining. I think they need to be put on the Endangered Species List before it's too late.

 

[pokecole]

Let's also think of bacteria which are the most populous living things.

When we take antibiotics (and abuse them), there is a genocide of bacteria within the biosphere of our bodies...this combined with sterile "clean" living environments of first world countries has led to a disparity of immune system resilience depending upon environment. (hygene hypothesis). This is an example of genocide and environment change which have negative health consequences.

Now, the question is, does the extinction of a species matter?

It depends upon the philosophical underpinnings. If you are assuming an anthropocentric viewpoint, then an animal's extinction is only consequential if the species serves a human function. Further, insects or birds that carry viruses/disease might serve human needs if eradicated. (You could also counter that diseases like malaria decreases population, and lower population is an anthropocentric goal.)


I am not a fan of those who argue for animal rights and biodiversity for its own sake. BUT, ecosystems are not resilient to human activity, the effects can in-turn negatively impact human life. That is a concern.

It was noted in the National Geographic that some fishermen campaigned for killing whales because they were threatening the fish supply and thus jobs and the fishing industry.

A chain of events eventually came full circle and led to a loss of jobs:

Here is a little paragraph about fishermen who were targeting young killer whales in order to reduce the population of killer whales eating all of the fish. Thus creating a loss in jobs. But, their actions had negative consequences to the environment, as well as jobs!

Spoiler:

The massive reduction in the local whale population meant killer whales in the region (usually preying on younger whales) moved to other animals such as seals;

As seal numbers declined, the killer whales targeted otters;

As otter numbers were decimated, the urchins and other targets of otters flourished;

These decimated the kelp forests where many fish larvae grew in relative protection;

The exposed fish larvae were easy pickings for a variety of sea life;

Fishermen's livelihoods were destroyed.

Especially at the top predator level, where there is very little diversity poaching has negative effects that trickle down since predators serve as a check on either the producers or non-carnivorous consumers. This disturbs stasis.

Protection (or genocide/reduction) of animals should be implemented when it effects human life in the form of healthy environment, furtherment of agricultural and cattle industries, enhancement of medicine, prevention of disease, to remedy an imbalance in the ecosystem, or something else that effects human happiness/stability.

In that sense, I think this prospective allows for contextual differences rather than stating biodiversity is good or bad arbitrarily. IF I had to guess, more often than not accelerated extinction (from the norm) can cause negative human consequences, but there is room for strategic reduction/augmentation of a species to serve anthropocentric purposes.

The problem with this is that people can't reach a general consensus on any one way of thinking. They very well could say that they want to act based upon how the species in question would be affected, because we aren't in any danger. While it might seem cruel to decide how a species will live, if at all, based on how we feel. Although, you could argue just as easily that a dominant species should dictate what happens. You could also argue that if something isn't able to survive on its own in the world, then it has overstayed its welcome here.

My main point is that a lot of people might view it as selfish to make actions based upon whether or not it affects us positively or negatively. This causes a lot of turmoil among the masses and we'd never reach an agreement. I think it's perfectly fine to make actions based on benefits to us, because it should force some adaptations and hopefully progress evolution. Change is something that most are afraid of, be it good or not.

 

[Entermaid]

The problem with this is that people can't reach a general consensus on any one way of thinking. They very well could say that they want to act based upon how the species in question would be affected, because we aren't in any danger. While it might seem cruel to decide how a species will live, if at all, based on how we feel. Although, you could argue just as easily that a dominant species should dictate what happens. You could also argue that if something isn't able to survive on its own in the world, then it has overstayed its welcome here.

My main point is that a lot of people might view it as selfish to make actions based upon whether or not it affects us positively or negatively. This causes a lot of turmoil among the masses and we'd never reach an agreement. I think it's perfectly fine to make actions based on benefits to us, because it should force some adaptations and hopefully progress evolution. Change is something that most are afraid of, be it good or not.

Those are examples of irrational ways of thinking...without a clear ultimate goal, which in my explanation is an anthropocentric end. Policymakers (are supposed to) operate within that framework as well, the goal is to maximize human quality of life. This is not a point of contention, among policy makers and bureaucrats, but rather, a consensus within their job descriptions.


Now there can be disagreement with how that good life is to be achieved, and how that anthropocentric role they are claiming to be adhering to can be abused. Given, in order to make change, those in representative democracy must garner votes, and appeal to proximate issues as well as instilling issues and concerns in the public via misinformed hysteria.

Maximizing economic benefit in the short run may have negative long run effects on both the environment and the economic resources, and thus a negative effect on the economy. Likewise, devoting funding to rescue a particular species, of which no human value (or gain in value) is to be made from this long-term investment, has negative impacts on human life, depleting time and resources for a non-anthropocentric cause.

The problem that you point out applies to policymakers, not "the people".

It's a top-down transfer of political thought which is being employed by policy makers instilling concerns in the voters. They make convincing and emotional appeals to proximate goals in order to gain votes. This has given rise to hyper-partisanship.

For example. Conservatives are more likely to assume short term goals of maximizing economic output, whereas liberals tend to assume the importance of animal life and diversity for it's own sake. This is the major flaw of policymakers not applying anthropocentric rationale, but rather making emotional appeals to jobs (in the short run, since their terms are short-term) and animal suffering. These are just two poor examples of which policy rationale can have negative consequences on human life. (I explain why those two policy don't work above.) Remember, not too long ago environmental issues were not as polarized in the US, conservatives and liberals had more cross party cooperation on these matters as a neutral issue.

My normative stance is that this issue should be viewed from an anthropocentric viewpoint, and the current system of policy making doesn't fulfill this goal, even though political factions state that their decisions are "good" for people. They often don't show their work so to speak, and rather, give us simple answers, rather than looking to biologists, economists, health specialists, and policy analysts for objective solutions.

There is also change in the environmental policy frequently, and turmoil would be reduced if policymakers operated under an objective framework. In that sense change in political structure could results in less wavering in the long-term and therefore increased public satisfaction regardless of which political regime assumes power. But, you are totally right that change and wavering has negative effects on the public.

Off topic, I know, but I really think it's important to understand why "the people" and "their representatives" often steer policies away from rational thought. And, rather than being complacent with this destructive political cycle, that hyper-polarization be addressed and eradicated in favor of addressing this issue in a way that increases quality of life.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Don't speed up any extinction. Slow down, reverse anything caused by man. Natural goings-ons, educational opportunities

 

[pokecole]

Those are examples of irrational ways of thinking...without a clear ultimate goal, which in my explanation is an anthropocentric end. Policymakers (are supposed to) operate within that framework as well, the goal is to maximize human quality of life. This is not a point of contention, among policy makers and bureaucrats, but rather, a consensus within their job descriptions.


Now there can be disagreement with how that good life is to be achieved, and how that anthropocentric role they are claiming to be adhering to can be abused. Given, in order to make change, those in representative democracy must garner votes, and appeal to proximate issues as well as instilling issues and concerns in the public via misinformed hysteria.

Maximizing economic benefit in the short run may have negative long run effects on both the environment and the economic resources, and thus a negative effect on the economy. Likewise, devoting funding to rescue a particular species, of which no human value (or gain in value) is to be made from this long-term investment, has negative impacts on human life, depleting time and resources for a non-anthropocentric cause.

The problem that you point out applies to policymakers, not "the people".

It's a top-down transfer of political thought which is being employed by policy makers instilling concerns in the voters. They make convincing and emotional appeals to proximate goals in order to gain votes. This has given rise to hyper-partisanship.

For example. Conservatives are more likely to assume short term goals of maximizing economic output, whereas liberals tend to assume the importance of animal life and diversity for it's own sake. This is the major flaw of policymakers not applying anthropocentric rationale, but rather making emotional appeals to jobs (in the short run, since their terms are short-term) and animal suffering. These are just two poor examples of which policy rationale can have negative consequences on human life. (I explain why those two policy don't work above.) Remember, not too long ago environmental issues were not as polarized in the US, conservatives and liberals had more cross party cooperation on these matters as a neutral issue.

My normative stance is that this issue should be viewed from an anthropocentric viewpoint, and the current system of policy making doesn't fulfill this goal, even though political factions state that their decisions are "good" for people. They often don't show their work so to speak, and rather, give us simple answers, rather than looking to biologists, economists, health specialists, and policy analysts for objective solutions.

There is also change in the environmental policy frequently, and turmoil would be reduced if policymakers operated under an objective framework. In that sense change in political structure could results in less wavering in the long-term and therefore increased public satisfaction regardless of which political regime assumes power. But, you are totally right that change and wavering has negative effects on the public.

Off topic, I know, but I really think it's important to understand why "the people" and "their representatives" often steer policies away from rational thought. And, rather than being complacent with this destructive political cycle, that hyper-polarization be addressed and eradicated in favor of addressing this issue in a way that increases quality of life.

I've bolded a few points that I'd like to stress in this reply. I completely agree with what you've said here, we have many political issues that we've yet to resolve. The problem stems from lack goals and specification.

If you ask me, we should assign different members of office to more specific ways of helping people, rather than mashing together their coinciding opinions. Another problem remains in, how you've stated, that they'll say almost anything and do things just to get votes and remain in office. The people of the country are so misinformed that any piece of threatening information can sway their votes. We need a way to stop the cult of ignorance we have, but I'll be damned if I know it.

People aren't trying to advance society in general so much as advancing their place in society. We are in desperate need of people who can contribute to and further society as a whole, rather than trying to further only themselves.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

Likewise, devoting funding to rescue a particular species, of which no human value (or gain in value) is to be made from this long-term investment, has negative impacts on human life, depleting time and resources for a non-anthropocentric cause.

I don't agree with this comment of yours. How does raising funding to rescue a particular species negatively impact my life? If anything, greater biodiversity enriches it. I have the pleasure of living next to a national park. Oftentimes I have Australian king parrots, cockatoos and rosellas perched on the balustrade of my balcony. I delight in this. If these species were threatened and went extinct that would severely affect my quality of life. I know you mean to say humans as a collective, but we are not legion.

Governments spend millions to supply aid to third world countries, but the lives of those people do not affect my life as the birds do. If we are to make arguments on saving species based on selfish desires of humans, I think you'll find no consensus. As heartless as it is to admit, my heart breaks when I think of the poaching of wildlife in Africa but does not quaver when I think of the current victims of Ebola.

 

[Entermaid]

I don't agree with this comment of yours. How does raising funding to rescue a particular species negatively impact my life? If anything, greater biodiversity enriches it. I have the pleasure of living next to a national park. Oftentimes I have Australian king parrots, cockatoos and rosellas perched on the balustrade of my balcony. I delight in this. If these species were threatened and went extinct that would severely affect my quality of life. I know you mean to say humans as a collective, but we are not legion.

Governments spend millions to supply aid to third world countries, but the lives of those people do not affect my life as the birds do. If we are to make arguments on saving species based on selfish desires of humans, I think you'll find no consensus. As heartless as it is to admit, my heart breaks when I think of the poaching of wildlife in Africa but does not quaver when I think of the current victims of Ebola.

Policy positions shouldn't be framed to further the interests of only a few individuals at the expense of the whole. The argument should be how money is spent to increase the livelihood of all individuals within a country. Protecting a species, given there is not value to human life that has been determined, is working against your own interests as well as the general population.

Further, the money spent on protecting a species, given there is no value to human life, isn't necessarily going to fund program "X" you don't agree with. That is how you are framing the argument, that money not spent on this species will go to further another human's life. But what if the funds affect you and/or your family directly? Which benefits your life more, protecting a species or receiving tax breaks or receiving programs benefits (school tuition, ect)?

Further, foreign aid actually benefits the posturing and allegiances of developed nations. If, for instance, a nation is to be a part of NATO and is not assisting in funding an initiative or sending military aid, then that country will have less pull in that allegiance. A country having power within an allegiance directly affects your interests as a citizen of that country. Thus, foreign aid can actually affect your life indirectly, in a profound way.

Now, is that the best use of money? Shrug. Your country may already spend more than enough to sway international ties. Perhaps not spending that money, and decreasing debt spending can assist in lowering inflation, and increasing consumer purchasing power. If, let's say, other non-human furthering initiatives are also cut, the multitude of wasteful spending (wasteful as in having more inputs than actual outputs) human life, including your own has the potential to be quite beneficial.

 

[gnmmarechal]

Animals going extinct is a good thing - well, naturally that is. Going extinct through natural means is completely normal. Over 99% of species that ever lived are extinct today. Creatures that cannot survive will inevitably go extinct, and, while it's a sad story, it's really not anything that leads to something that's bad, just different - as long as other creatures who are more suitable for the environment persist, biodiversity will still be prevalent. Nowadays we have more biodiversity than the planet ever had.

I guess one way to look at it is look at how video game console designs have changed throughout the years. Some devices, like the Atari 2600, NES, and Playstation 2 were incredibly successful, and even today you can see things that other systems have adapted to get in on that success. Other designs, like the Virtual Boy, were not, and were "selected" out. The industry for software has changed over time as well - back 30 years ago, people were content with certain kinds of games which are not very successful these days. However, despite many failures, video game devices are more diverse than ever - ranging from simple electronics to powerful consoles to portable all-purpose phones.

The problem with current extinction is the fact that it's occurring too quickly. In fact, many scientists consider it an extinction event. Do I believe that, unhindered, the developments of this extinction event will destroy life on earth? No. However, I do believe that the consequences of these actions will certainly put the human population in jeopardy, and greatly reduce biodiversity. However, life will rebound, and within several million years it will reach its prior diversity. The most deadly extinction event ever, the P-T extinction event (right before the dinosaurs) killed 95% of marine and 75% of terrestrial species. Over 85% of genera at the time were completely wiped out. Scientists believe that recovery was complete about 30 million years after the event.

Frankly, I don't believe that the current extinction event will be that profound. Probably less than the one that killed the dinosaurs. It doesn't mean it's not important though.

It might be natural, but it isn't good.

Also, based on scientific articles and books, I can say that we are near a cataclism, and it will be much larger than when the dinossaurs were wiped out.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Normal extinction is natural and is a good thing, it's not a good thing when it is a mass extinction. Scientists consider the current rate of extinction to match up with such a mass extinction. I'm not really sure where you got the idea that the current extinction event is "good" from that, but it's not. It is, however, something that probably won't be as cataclysmic as other extinction events in the past.

 

[pokecole]

It might be natural, but it isn't good.

Also, based on scientific articles and books, I can say that we are near a cataclism, and it will be much larger than when the dinossaurs were wiped out.

That point is actually very debatable. While it may seem obviously negative, animals going extinct can pave the way for more developed and useful species. This serves anthropocentric goals, as well as whole ecosystems. Say an animal that doesn't provide us a specific or important use to us goes extinct. Now, a new organism is free to replace it. It's also possible that existing organisms will develop and adapt to roles they wouldn't have otherwise played. This can change a whole ecosystem for better or worse.

Many scientists believe that we are in a period of mass extinction because of how humans have been affecting the environment. We are constantly clearing out environments directly, as well as indirectly affecting them. While it's a sad story- (where have I heard this before) -It's one that could potentially benefit us, as well as the planet. It just depends on how living things adapt to this change.

 

[gnmmarechal]

but, mutation isn't the same imo.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

Policy positions shouldn't be framed to further the interests of only a few individuals at the expense of the whole.

That's not always true, however. Earlier this year the Western Australian government starting a shark cull against tiger, bull and great white sharks due to a fatal attacks of seven people between 2010 and 2013 with the anthropocentric view that you bring up. However, a poll revealed that 80% of Australians (a clear majority) oppose the shark cull and thousands lined beaches to protest the move (see picture in spoiler).

Spoiler:

The argument should be how money is spent to increase the livelihood of all individuals within a country. Protecting a species, given there is not value to human life that has been determined, is working against your own interests as well as the general population.

What if a community's livelihood is tourist dependent? Many popular tourist destinations (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef, South Africa) require biodiversity to exist. Therefore, while these animals might not have a direct value to humans, there is an entire economy based around them.

Which benefits your life more, protecting a species or receiving tax breaks or receiving programs benefits (school tuition, ect)?

To be honest, I welcome any tax that goes towards conservation efforts. In Australia we had a Carbon Tax to charge large polluters (who then passed on additional cost to consumers, so the general people would feel it) and I was angry that it got abolished. It was an extra $200-$500 a year. That is a VERY small price to pay to have some positive action for the environment. I'm still angry with my fellow countrymen for voting in the current government and letting that happen. If taxes will solve the issue, bring them on.

Unfortunately, the issue is more than just funding. There is a big cultural issue surrounding environmental concerns. For example the poaching of elephants, rhinos and tigers for the sake of stupid Chinese medicines is a big problem that cannot be fixed with money. A lot of people are not well enough educated to know what is or is not important for the future of our planet and our society.

 

[pokecole]

That's not always true, however. Earlier this year the Western Australian government starting a shark cull against tiger, bull and great white sharks due to a fatal attacks of seven people between 2010 and 2013 with the anthropocentric view that you bring up. However, a poll revealed that 80% of Australians (a clear majority) oppose the shark cull and thousands lined beaches to protest the move (see picture in spoiler).

Spoiler:

What if a community's livelihood is tourist dependent? Many popular tourist destinations (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef, South Africa) require biodiversity to exist. Therefore, while these animals might not have a direct value to humans, there is an entire economy based around them.



To be honest, I welcome any tax that goes towards conservation efforts. In Australia we had a Carbon Tax to charge large polluters (who then passed on additional cost to consumers, so the general people would feel it) and I was angry that it got abolished. It was an extra $200-$500 a year. That is a VERY small price to pay to have some positive action for the environment. I'm still angry with my fellow countrymen for voting in the current government and letting that happen. If taxes will solve the issue, bring them on.

Unfortunately, the issue is more than just funding. There is a big cultural issue surrounding environmental concerns. For example the poaching of elephants, rhinos and tigers for the sake of stupid Chinese medicines is a big problem that cannot be fixed with money. A lot of people are not well enough educated to know what is or is not important for the future of our planet and our society.

I think The Dark Avenger's statement on things being good if they benefit the whole is true. If a minority (the shark victims) are sacrificed to benefit the whole (people protesting), then I think it follows his statement. The whole is benefitted by the minority's sacrifice in ways of species diversity, which affects the economy, aesthetic pleasure, and in the way of tax breaks because of government money saved. I believe this proves his statement.

I think that you are taking his statement in a little wrong. I'm not sure what the misconception is here, but there is definitely some miscommunication. As for the second paragraph of your quote, it isn't benefitting the whole if it is harming them economically. I think the misconception is that you are thinking he means that his anthropocentric belief is purely for the extinction and neglect of animals, when it is isn't. It is switching repeatedly to serve whatever purpose is more convenient.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I think The Dark Avenger's statement on things being good if they benefit the whole is true. If a minority (the shark victims) are sacrificed to benefit the whole (people protesting), then I think it follows his statement. The whole is benefitted by the minority's sacrifice in ways of species diversity, which affects the economy, aesthetic pleasure, and in the way of tax breaks because of government money saved. I believe this proves his statement.

I think that you are taking his statement in a little wrong. I'm not sure what the misconception is here, but there is definitely some miscommunication. As for the second paragraph of your quote, it isn't benefitting the whole if it is harming them economically. I think the misconception is that you are thinking he means that his anthropocentric belief is purely for the extinction and neglect of animals, when it is isn't. It is switching repeatedly to serve whatever purpose is more convenient.

If that's the case then the whole argument isn't really saying anything. It's very noncommittal. If biodiversity is itself a benefit to humans (case with sharks in Australia - they offer no other value), what is the argument for only saving those animals with direct human value (as mentioned previously)? This kind of turns the argument fully conservationist in that all animals in danger of extinction should be saved for the sake of biodiversity, which I know is not what the original intent of these arguments were.

 

[Entermaid]

If that's the case then the whole argument isn't really saying anything. It's very noncommittal. If biodiversity is itself a benefit to humans (case with sharks in Australia - they offer no other value), what is the argument for only saving those animals with direct human value (as mentioned previously)? This kind of turns the argument fully conservationist in that all animals in danger of extinction should be saved for the sake of biodiversity, which I know is not what the original intent of these arguments were.

No. As I explained before it's about inputs and outputs across policy sectors. You are framing the argument as long as there is some output. That is why I clearly don't approve biodiversity as an argument since it's not anthropocentric on its own standing.

In all policy debate there are at least 2 arguments. In this case, it's assessing the benefit to human life by:

1. Aiding species X
2. Aiding other initiative Z (whether it's a species or not.)
3. Expanding budget to accommodate new initiative.

Assessment is performed by measuring, as I stated, outputs minus inputs. Measuring those against other policies. If the costs to protecting a species outweighs the benefit to human life there is an inefficiency.

Bees for instance are vital to our agricultural sector along with bats, moths, butterflies, hummingbirds, ants, beetles and other prominent pollinators (an argument beyond biodiversity). They save us tons of money and provide greater outputs in food, and warrant more protection.

So, here is a run through of options one should assess in deciding whether to devote resources to saving a species.

1. Any initiative to save another species, if only for the sake of biodiversity, is taking away funding from protecting species that are actually essential to human life.
2. Any initiative to save another species, if only for the sake of biodiversity, is taking away funding from social welfare programs, healthcare, schooling, policing, ect.
3. Any initiative to save another species, if only for the sake of biodiversity, is increasing the total budget, no other programs are cut. Thus taxes are increased. Increased taxes, increased inflation, decreased purchasing power, and decreased economic growth, ect.

The biodiversity argument is fairly weak on its own standing since that means any and all animals should be saved if able to (which, again is impossible). Rather, there needs to be an argument to distinguish which species should and which ones should not be protected. From that, furtherance or preservation of human life seems to be the best argument in making that distinction least arbitrary.

 

[Konishi]

Whether the issue is approached from an ecological or anthropomorphic angle, the extinction of a species is a terrible occurrence.

Biodiversity helps make ecosystems more resilient to shocks. Take for example, a simple predator-prey model. The herbivorous prey numbers are kept in check by a smaller number of predators. There would be a safe range of predator-to-prey ratios (and absolute prey numbers), which in the long run would approach an equilibrium value.

Having just one single species of each, is less environmentally stable than if there were multiple species. If a disease that one species is prone to, spreads rampantly, then having multiple species on the same food-chain level would mean:
1. There is a lower likelihood of ecological collapse if the prone species is wiped out; and
2. The disease wouldn't spread so quickly because the species is likely to have greater dispersion.

On an anthropomorphic stance, theextinction of a species would mean the elimination of a resource(with the possibility of yet to be discovered uses). At the veryleast, it would mean future generations don't get to see thatspecies.