Endangered Animals: Are They Worth Saving?

[Esper]

Why don't they breed all the endangered animals

I don't know too much about this, but I think I've read that it's not always an easy thing to breed animals in captivity, like with Pandas. And I have no idea how you'd even approach breeding animals in the wild.

Of course breeding programs are not a bad idea, just that by themselves they're not sufficient to keep animals from going extinct.

 

[BadPokemon]

I don't know too much about this, but I think I've read that it's not always an easy thing to breed animals in captivity, like with Pandas. And I have no idea how you'd even approach breeding animals in the wild.

Of course breeding programs are not a bad idea, just that by themselves they're not sufficient to keep animals from going extinct.

Unless they build multiple of them. However, there might not be enough rhinos to have that many. On top of that, it would probably super expensive. They would need tons and tons of food and water for possibly dozens of rhinos or whatever, sufficient weaponry and men to defend the breeding grounds from poachers, and a LOT more.

 

[twocows]

I don't know too much about this, but I think I've read that it's not always an easy thing to breed animals in captivity, like with Pandas. And I have no idea how you'd even approach breeding animals in the wild.

Of course breeding programs are not a bad idea, just that by themselves they're not sufficient to keep animals from going extinct.

Also, breeding animals in captivity doesn't teach them the knowledge they need to survive in the wild. Release captive-born animals into the wild and you'll just be putting a bunch of fodder into the wild.

 

[Monophobia]

Reminds me of...

Spoiler:

Anyway, back onto topic. Ecosystems are very complex builds of nature, and even though we may think one species going extinct will not affect anything in the long run, I don't really agree that we can just simply make that assumption.

Nature is far bigger than us humans, and we don't understand everything about it. Regardless of what someone says about this not affecting this or that, we don't know for certain. Besides, every animal is worth saving.

Let's say an alien race comes to Earth and starts to take over as the dominant species with the human race becoming extinct. If we die off, nothing will matter because the aliens have taken up our role in the ecosystem. Would you want them to just hack us away for no reason because it doesn't matter? That's repulsive in its own sense, and I just simply can't agree with someone who says because this species has no major role in the environment, its life does not matter.

 

[Rogue planet]

We are now seriously trying to find complex reasons to not kill things. How about we don't wipe out a species because it's just ♥♥♥♥ed up. What the hell are we if we just throw away all morals and use the excuse that it's the natural way of things etc. We are not barbarians (although I question this daily), we have the capacity to stop pointless destruction and I find it really hard to understand why some people think it's okay to continue...

Just bring it down to the bare basics. Is there not a little voice inside your head saying, actually no this is not okay? I really hope so.

 

[gimmepie]

If we can say 100% that a species in endangered because of something other than a negative environmental impact by humans through something like the destruction of their habitat, poaching or pollution then I see no reason for us to save them since clearly it is just natural selection. That being said if there is even a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 precent degree of uncertainty we should do what we can to protect these species since we can't know for sure exactly what effect they have on the ecosystem - which includes us by the way.

 

[Blu·Ray]

If we can say 100% that a species in endangered because of something other than a negative environmental impact by humans through something like the destruction of their habitat, poaching or pollution then I see no reason for us to save them since clearly it is just natural selection. That being said if there is even a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 precent degree of uncertainty we should do what we can to protect these species since we can't know for sure exactly what effect they have on the ecosystem - which includes us by the way.

I disagree. Even though this species has no impact on the ecosystem whatsoever, I still believe that we should try to keep it alive. We should keep it for its uniqueness, because every unique species is worth protecting. We should stop just thinking about ourselves and what ultimately benefits us or the ecosystem or the universe or whatever. The fact that something unique exists and that it may have the chance to thrive is wonderful, and these wonders can evolve into something even more wonderful. Uniqueness brings more uniqueness, and that I believe, is just pure awesome.

 

[Oryx]

I disagree. Even though this species has no impact on the ecosystem whatsoever, I still believe that we should try to keep it alive. We should keep it for its uniqueness, because every unique species is worth protecting. We should stop just thinking about ourselves and what ultimately benefits us or the ecosystem or the universe or whatever. The fact that something unique exists and that it may have the chance to thrive is wonderful, and these wonders can evolve into something even more wonderful. Uniqueness brings more uniqueness, and that I believe, is just pure awesome.

Can you expand on what you mean by "uniqueness brings more uniqueness"?

 

[Blu·Ray]

Can you expand on what you mean by "uniqueness brings more uniqueness"?

Well, if we have more unique species, and these unique species evolve, they become even more unique, essentially spreading further out from the origin. If some generic animal changes through random mutations, they are only a little different from those other generic animals, but when a unique animal mutates, it becomes an even more unique animal :)

 

[gimmepie]

The point being, if natural selection is killing the species of it shouldn't evolve. If we save a species from extinction that is marked for extinction by natural selection then we are potentially doing more harm to the world than good. Keeping something around just for its uniqueness is quite silly really, dinosaurs are unique we haven't had anything like them since long before humanity was close to existing but we wouldn't be around today if they were. By saving species that should go extinct and letting them evolve further we could be preventing the next great species from developing which is a far greater loss if you ask me.

That debate is a bit off-topic though, because we have had such an effect on the planet we can't really 100% say whether the extinction is our fault or not. Therefore conservation efforts should be made because I'd say the chances of the scenario I just mentioned are a lot less than those of us not saving an species we made endangered having a major effect.

So basically
If we are 100% certain we have no hand in the probable extinction of a species, we should remember we aren't gods and not interfere with the natural world any more than we already do. But since that scenario is incredibly unlikely, we should be making all the conservation efforts we can to ensure that we don't bring about a total ecological collapse.

 

[Oryx]

Do you guys think that there will ever be a point in which humans no longer need the environment? For example, we have our own ways of curating our atmosphere to the proper amounts, we create meat and grow vegetables in controlled environments, etc. At that point, if it's possible to reach, would we be justified in allowing the ecosystem to fall apart?

 

[Kanzler]

Probably, yeah. To whom do we owe protecting the environment if no longer to ourselves?

 

[Blu·Ray]

The ecosystem does not fall apart by itself. If we just leave the planet alone, it will thrive just fine, and once we can live without the ecosystem, we can do that. But I don't think that we should just destroy it all and turn it all into a clean environment optimized for our best chance of survival. Doing that is cruel against the ecosystem, it is cruel against the animals that live there. I find it extremely cold and egoistic to just kill off the ecosystems, because those animals have lives and family and consciousness too. There is something beautiful and fascinating about every living being, and I think that that is enough to justify not killing them even though we don't need them.

 

[Omicron]

I don't think it will ever be justifiable to let the ecosystem fall apart.

Letting the ecosystems fall apart because we no longer need them and we do not "owe" it to anyone is a very anthropocentric point of view.

Besides the moral and ethical implications to this, ecosystems will always be valuable sources of beauty and education.

 

[Kanzler]

What's wrong about being anthropocentric?

An invasive species doesn't care about its own impact on destroying a foreign environment. Are they being "species-centric"? I don't think humans throwing our weight around is in any way more selfish than any other species that wreck other's homes.

 

[Omicron]

Anthropocentrism narrows the way in which we perceive reality. I agree that the survival and well being of the human race should be our priority, no doubt about that. But letting everything die because we no longer need it is in no way an acceptable way of acting.

And yes, we are very different from invasive species. Humans, unlike invasive species, are capable of surviving without wrecking others' homes. And we are aware that we can do it and that we are destroying the ecosystem. Invasive species, besides becoming invasive because of us in most of the cases, are not aware that they shouldn't be there. They are also not aware they are destroying the ecosystem. They are doing the exact same thing they would have done in the wild in their original habitat.

 

[Konishi]

Of course endangered animals are worth saving, whether you look at it from an ecological or an anthropomorphic view.

Even if a species isn't vital for an ecosystem, the greater biodiversity helps make that ecosystem more stable.

The extinction of a species, is the elimination of a potential resource for present and future generations. Such a resource could potentially be used in medicine, scientific research, agriculture and/or industry. At the very least, the extinction of a species would deny future generations from ever seeing that species (except in illustrations, photos, videos etc).

 

[Bulbadon]

Yes they are worth saving because animals have become endangered because of us humans because of our activities so it is our duty to save them from dying.

 

[Hackenfall Backslash]

Those who debate natural selection and that as a superior species we have the right, no the privilege of being the dominant specie and proving this to other species, well quite frankly those people sicken me and are moronic. As a superior specie we have the ability and the resources to maintain a healthy planet for all animals, insects, plants, the lot. Unfortunately the high majority of the human population disregard the importance of this.

That's why I'm a misanthrope.

It's kinda the same thing as the whole, "we have the right because we are the dominant species" debate. The thing is, people just don't care about an entire specie dying off unless it effects them. Remember when people were talking about bees dying mysteriously? Well, people really only cared because a good number of the foods we eat are pollinated by bees. If, for example, pigs were on the brink of extinction, most people would only care because pork is a dietary staple. That being said, humans really do not have the right to kill off an entire species. We share the world with hundreds of other creatures and they too have the right to live.

They do.

Probably, yeah. To whom do we owe protecting the environment if no longer to ourselves?

. . . You're not serious.

I don't think it will ever be justifiable to let the ecosystem fall apart.

Letting the ecosystems fall apart because we no longer need them and we do not "owe" it to anyone is a very anthropocentric point of view.

Besides the moral and ethical implications to this, ecosystems will always be valuable sources of beauty and education.

No. It won't ever be.

Threads like these remind me of why I'm a misanthrope. I'm probably going to get moderated for this, but it needs to be said. This idea of "colonisation of space" needs to be forgotten about. The human species isn't ever going to leave Earth. Humans are apart of the pale blue dot. I know you science nuts out there are angry because I'm pretty much cremating your Star Wars dreams. That's the cold, hard truth. Moreover -- and this is where it gets heavy -- I'm not for a galactic exodus. Not until the current mess on Earth is cleaned up. I say this all the time among anti-population and eco-conscious circles. If humans are preparing to leave Earth for good (and the mess they leave behind is forgotten about), and I have a remote that prevents them from leaving until the job is done, best believe I'd use it.

That's not the topic, but I can feel it going there with this talk about preserving the planet in the event that humans are no longer around (either through extinction or mass exodus). Uh, yeah. Humans do need to repair the damage and clean Earth up before leaving it. Otherwise, don't expect me to vouch for them in the event that humans destroy Earth and have to seek refuge on an alien planet. I'll vouch for mah damn self and that's it.

"Well, I'm legit, but you don't want humans as a whole on your planet. Trust me. Best to just let 'em be."

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

It depends on the species, it's role, the reason why it's going extinct, and the ability to protect it.

Denying an extinction crisis is foolish, however, not every creature is falling due to human intervention. A good example is the Gold Winged Warbler, which is becoming more rare as it interbreeds with other warbler species in the United States, producing reproductively nonviable young. Attempting to rescue these creatures is perhaps an effort in vain, due to their counterproductive behaviour. However, things get tricky in cases like the Maned fox, because this creature first had its numbers reduced before it started to interbreed with other species.

Overall, I am pro-protection, but it's important to remember that sometimes it's not our fault.