Because there's a balance and symbiotic harmony in nature that doesn't stand ******* with. Say for instance we all thought your mum could be wiped from existance - you'd shortly notice that your room would start to stink and the fairy that does your laundry, washing up and cooking has stopped working. There's a bigger picture involved.........
But are we not part of that "symbiotic harmony"? What differentiates us from any predator or environmental change in the planet's history?
And I mean something quantifiable, not just "Because we're civilised." Elements of so many things we have used to describe a "human" have turned up in the rest of nature, toolmaking for example. I'm not convinced we're any more than probably the most technologically advanced animal ever to be on this planet.
Oh, and I don't really like adding this - as it's not relevant to my point; but I moved out of home a long time ago.
It didn’t matter hundred and thousands of years ago because many species were abundant. Now the numbers are limited and we preserve them because they are part of the make-up of our environment. They have as much of a right to be here as you. Also because we don’t want a planet with **** all left except you and your kind.
I have 2 issues with this, the word "right" and the abundance thing:
Is there really a scarcity of species on the planet? There tree of life is constantly forking out new species, we're discovering new ones way faster than we're witnessing known ones become extinct, so how do you substantiate that species are not in abundance?
Now; nothing has a right to be on this planet, it simply is here. The laws of science and mathematics suggest that if a mechanism accidentally falls into place that causes an imperfect self-replicating entity, evolution occurs and the entity becomes better suited to the environment as the less suitable copies fail. The law of averages suggests that in this big universe, it's likely to happen, and it happened here. It all being witnessed by us is self fulfilling.
A "right" is just a concept we came up with regarding how we treat each other.
Helping out a struggling species is a decision we make, not an obligation. Whether we help out or not is less significant than life occurring (what you refer to as the right to exist).
Can anyone drop the name calling and present an actual reason to help a failing species, if it failing due to our influence, another animal's influence or a change in the environment. There's a lot of potential reasons:
- It is beneficial to science to have a larger range of species for study. That has merit.
- A species may be beneficial to or required by our agricultural activities. There's strong evidence for this in a lot of cases.
Saving the animal for saving it's sake is not a rational reason. What I was trying to do with my other post is discuss my observation that "all species must be preserved, regardless of how badly suited they are to what is now around them". So why did everyone decide that "your kind" are on the way to derail this thread, and that I'm ignorant?
PS:
Oh and the point about endangered species laws being flawed: I mean that if the laws mean it's a disadvantage to have the species on your property, people will kill them like this. A change in the law is required.
