Endangered and Extinct Animals

[Konishi]

From an anthropomorphic stance, the extinction 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.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

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.

I highly doubt the amount of money required to make change to save species for the sake of biodiversity (if introduced through taxes) would cripple an economy. A 1% tax for conservation would go a long way and would be felt very little.

I still also think your argument goes against the common consensus of the population (at least of first world nations). Like with the shark example I provided earlier:

The other myth is that people do not care. Work by Charles Darwin University PhD student Gill Ainsworth shows that is wrong. In a survey designed to avoid bias, 75% said they would become upset if a bird became extinct (compared to 7% who disagreed); 74% said that people have a moral obligation to protect threatened birds (compared with 5%); and 47% said that the needs of threatened species can come ahead of people compared with 15% who thought the opposite.

source

I particularly take interest in the bolded text. That is almost 50% who think it is more important than human needs and only 15% outright disagreed.

Just because it is impossible to save all species doesn't mean we should give up trying to save as many as we can (regardless of their impact on human life). That is the worst sort of argument.

 

[pokecole]

I highly doubt the amount of money required to make change to save species for the sake of biodiversity (if introduced through taxes) would cripple an economy. A 1% tax for conservation would go a long way and would be felt very little.

I still also think your argument goes against the common consensus of the population (at least of first world nations). Like with the shark example I provided earlier:


source

I particularly take interest in the bolded text. That is almost 50% who think it is more important than human needs and only 15% outright disagreed.

Just because it is impossible to save all species doesn't mean we should give up trying to save as many as we can (regardless of their impact on human life). That is the worst sort of argument.

At some point this just becomes a matter of coinciding opinions. I find that it would be more effective to save beneficial things, as well as leaving those that aren't beneficial. A lot of the time, saving something from extinction is a losing battle - often those species are less equipped to deal with their surroundings, which is why they're in danger. At some point, they will lose to their surroundings and be wiped out. People can keep them safe for a long time, but this doesn't change the fact that they will still lose out eventually. It's just a very uphill battle that can be harmful to us.

As for the majority of people argument, the majority is not always right. It used to be in majority favor that women didn't have the rights of a man, but that's not exactly the right way to go. There's also the problem of bias. You can ask a large group of people if they want to give up something to help others, and they'll most often say that they will. The fact is though, that when push comes to shove, no one really wants to give up anything. It's much easier to say what you feel is right than actually sacrificing it in doing so. People also have to keep up egos and whatnot.

I also want to take a moment to thank everyone who has posted in this thread. I was a little worried that I wouldn't get much input, or that it would be a one sided debate. Thank you to everyone who posted their honest opinion and tried to back it up. This is why I truly feel that pokecommunity is a great place to have a conversation, because you have great people giving great opinions. Thank you all!

 

[Lotus the Cat]

At some point this just becomes a matter of coinciding opinions. I find that it would be more effective to save beneficial things, as well as leaving those that aren't beneficial. A lot of the time, saving something from extinction is a losing battle - often those species are less equipped to deal with their surroundings, which is why they're in danger. At some point, they will lose to their surroundings and be wiped out. People can keep them safe for a long time, but this doesn't change the fact that they will still lose out eventually. It's just a very uphill battle that can be harmful to us.

As for the majority of people argument, the majority is not always right. It used to be in majority favor that women didn't have the rights of a man, but that's not exactly the right way to go. There's also the problem of bias. You can ask a large group of people if they want to give up something to help others, and they'll most often say that they will. The fact is though, that when push comes to shove, no one really wants to give up anything. It's much easier to say what you feel is right than actually sacrificing it in doing so. People also have to keep up egos and whatnot.

I also want to take a moment to thank everyone who has posted in this thread. I was a little worried that I wouldn't get much input, or that it would be a one sided debate. Thank you to everyone who posted their honest opinion and tried to back it up. This is why I truly feel that pokecommunity is a great place to have a conversation, because you have great people giving great opinions. Thank you all!

Glad you're enjoying my vehement disagreeableness. ;)

Regarding the bold text, when many of the species now endangered are in that position as a result of human behaviour, I think we are capable of and responsible for reversing the damage. For example, deforestation and unsustainable farming practices lead to extinction and decline in many species.Take palm oil plantations and orangutans as a specific example.

 

[griever7x]

I agree with the above statement.
Letting nature take its course is perfectly understandable - species that are not fit for survival should let other species thrive - but our position, being on top of the food chain, is different. We can't put ourselves on the same level as other species and think by that logic. It's catastrophic.

The anthropocentric view has its merits, and I think focusing on protecting species that are essential to us is a great idea, but when the fault is ours we should take responsibility in our actions.

Ever thought about respect for life and coexistence? Making arguments about whether we are wasting resources protecting this and that seems rather silly to me; there is plenty of wasteful human behavior already that helping other species would be an insignificant effort by comparison, and some of these species are endangered by us in the first place: cutting on our own wasteful behavior would do as much good to us as to other species...
We should be better than that and figure out ways to further thrive ( we already do ) without needing to stomp on the lives of other species, especially if it's completely avoidable and if it is sustainable ( it likely is ) to avoid doing so.

Sure, it's very likely that out there in the vast universe there are other habitable planets with other lifeforms, but as things stand now, space colonization is but a dream, which in my opinion should make the flora and fauna on our planet even more valuable.