Why save endangered species?

[FrozenBacon]

After reading this article made me think about why are we trying to save so many species from extinction. Most endangered species are not endangered because of humans, but rather because they were losing the game of life. At this point we are just screwing with evolution by allowing the weak to survive.

Discuss.

 

[Sightless]

Not because of humans alone, you mean. I don't think that we can remove humans from the game of life. Following that, you could look at it like we're not really screwing with evolution (apart from how you can't really screw with evolution) -- we're changing the environment of whatever we decide to try to save, such that they are no longer considered to be weak. You could think about it in terms of humans in a reverse process: capturing humans and submerging them in non-LCL liquid is basically making them weak, in this context. Kind of a poor example, but I mean to highlight that evolution isn't concerned with strength in an absolute sense; it's about the relationship between life and its environment. Remember that evolution is a process that is not conscious work towards a particular end state.

What I'm saying is evolution isn't racist, and it's all like, relative, man.


Edit: To respond to the topic question, saving endangered lifeforms is cool because we can continue to learn from it, and expand our knowledge. We can't study dead things in quite the same way as we can live things (which isn't to say that dead things aren't worth studying).

 

[MattAY]

Saving lives innit.

 

[De-Ting]

At this point we are just screwing with evolution by allowing the weak to survive.

But if we're a part of evolution, wouldn't us saving those species just be evolution trying to continue evolution?

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

 

[cyberjim2000]

Nuke the whales.

 

[Affen]

Diversity of the nature is nice and fascinating.

Sometimes I forget that some species really exist. Many times it's for the best.

 

[Optimus-Crime]

When life is capable of sustaining itself thing are thought to work better. We want to believe there's a place for all things and all things have a purpose, even when that purpose is only to be killed and eaten. Better them than us. So maybe it's our own weakness that keeps them around.
The loss of a species strikes us at our own mortality, at our own time on earth. Maybe it's our ego that keeps them around.
So maybe it's a combination. I think it's a fear of the unknown, and that we don't want to see a change happen on earth under our generation's watch.

 

[NecroWolf]

At this point we are just screwing with evolution by allowing the weak to survive.

But if we're a part of evolution, wouldn't us saving those species just be evolution trying to continue evolution?

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

HEAD HURTS STOP MAKING NECRO THINK WITH YOUR SMART WORD STUFF

In all seriousness, I've been on the fence about this subject for a long time. I can see both sides of the argument. My two cents though is if a species isn't useful in some way, or is obviously weak, then we should let nature run its course. However, if a species is dying because of us, then we should do something about it.

 

[Sourdeez]

Unless we can eat it, then take some DNA and let it die.

 

[NecroWolf]

Unless we can eat it, then take some DNA and let it die.

 

[LinksOcarina]

At this point we are just screwing with evolution by allowing the weak to survive.

But if we're a part of evolution, wouldn't us saving those species just be evolution trying to continue evolution?

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

Uh...maybe.

To evolve we need to keep evolving as a species. Not just physically, but mentally, socially and culturally.

 

[Lien]

All i can say is... My favorite animals of all time are spotted hyenas and the white sharks. For a LONG time their number flourish all across the planet... Till people started to make stories that hyenas were scavengers and are hunted down like wild dogs in the savanna and that one Spielberg film that convinced fans we only need one 1/5 of all white sharks in world cause they be "dangerous".
So then, if hyenas and white sharks were almost brought to extinction cause of how we portray them in the media, we, us human beings browsing the internet, are not eligible to judge that "Nature will balance things out" from our actions.

Fun fact, the ONLY species of animals who are not dependent of human activities (be it beneficial or bad) are cockroaches. They can survive in the wild and in urban areas meaning that if we make every animals extinct in the world, the roaches wouldn't care for one bit. They'll keep multiplying and populate the planet!

And i for one, welcome our soon to be cockroach overlords!

 

[Guan_Yu]

Endangered species are the tastiest, so we want to keep them around. Of course, we can't save too many or else that sweet burst of endangered flavor disappears. What I'm saying is that it's a delicate balance, just like any ecosystem. Also Obama.

 

[malakian]

Chris Packham who is a TV host here on really good nature programs once said controversially they should stop bothering to save the panda because of the massive amount of money that could be used for more useful conservation efforts.

 

[Affen]

Some animals that have gone extinct in the near past.

Many of them seem to be local variants of species that are more common elsewhere. The tale of the last Pyrenean Ibex is tragicomic.

"The last of this subspecies of Spanis ibex died in the wild in 2000 when a tree fell on her."

It's like even mother nature wanted to get rid of it.

 

[Optimus-Crime]

Many of them seem to be local variants of species that are more common elsewhere.

exactly this. There's a bird and it's gone extinct. Big whoop. That bird was the subgenus of another bird, with however many more hybrids branching off of it.
Save the white rhino but when it comes to something like birds and even plant life, COME ON. You gotta draw the line somewhere, so begin there.