Does it make sense to preserve species?

[Demigod]

This is something I posted over at the Raving Atheist forums a while back and thought would be worth posting here. One day I was watching a show on preserving endangered species and one question popped into my mind: why? Why preserve species? So what if a species goes extinct. Why is that such a big deal and why should we care?

From the theory of evolution it's natural for species to die out every now and then. The vast majority of species that have existed on earth have already died out and many more will do so in the future. New species are also constantly being created; it's not like there's a stock number of species on earth and losing a species will permanently reduce the number of species (one commentator on the show said that we should preserve species because otherwise "we're going to have such an empty planet"). Furthermore, if a species no longer has the ability to thrive on their own then why try to prevent it from going extinct? When mother nature says it's time to go then it's time to go. Sure human beings are making great changes to the earth and the species on it but so have many other species who have dominated the earth at one time or another and it's not unnatural for a species to go extinct due to the actions of another (in fact competition for survival is the reason why evolution happens at all).

I think part of the reason is that people feel guilty for destroying wildlife and their habitat (poaching and hunting are the direct causes of some extinctions) and so are trying to make up for it through wildlife preservation. However, I think we're overcompensating by trying to keep anything and everything alive, and I also can't help thinking that we're doing this at least partially for ourselves (to ease our sense of guilt). Well anyways, what do people here think about species conservation?

[jonc2006]

well heres one thing to think about, what happens when we are on the verge of extention, whos going to try and preserve us?

[Vanit]

The only logical explaination I think is that the abscence of the endangered species would unbalance the ecosystem. But this is incorrect, since their numbers are low enough that the damage has already been done and it seems people like making futile attempts at preserving species. One view I tend to take is that nature is beautiful; I've reached a stage in my spirituality where I try to look at everything as beautiful and it makes sense to try keep as much beauty in the world as possible.

jonc2006: That is an extremely interesting concept. Would spur a nice sci-fi movie, methinks.

[jonc2006]

Originally Posted by Vanit

The only logical explaination I think is that the abscence of the endangered species would unbalance the ecosystem. But this is incorrect, since their numbers are low enough that the damage has already been done and it seems people like making futile attempts at preserving species. One view I tend to take is that nature is beautiful; I've reached a stage in my spirituality where I try to look at everything as beautiful and it makes sense to try keep as much beauty in the world as possible.

jonc2006: That is an extremely interesting concept. Would spur a nice sci-fi movie, methinks.

yeah, considering we are the only real intelligent species on this planet, i dont think we have the kick ourselves over something that is really natual like that, we dont see other species trying to preserve each other and as far as someone preserving us thats going to either be god or some higher intelligent species if they feel like it but thats debatable. i dont see anyone who would actaully WANT to preserve a crazy species like us anyway.

[TheCloudOfSmoke]

You have to remember that it's not only mother nature that is making species more closer to being extinct. IIRC, I see at least ten new dead animals on the road on my way to school everyday. The constant destruction of the homes of wildlife just to make useless restaurants and stores is leaving animals with no where to go. That's just what I see where I live, imagine that on a global level. So mother nature herself is not the only one in the process of eliminating different species. The lifestyle of us humans is making the process of extinction much faster. You also have to remember the whole food chain thing. Certain animals thrive on other specific animals and prey to survive. If one species dies then it's possible for another species of animals who relied on that species as their main food source to go along with it through time. That empty planet exuse that that commenter said just sounds stupid, I don't think that would ever happen as long as humans are still on this planet. Just my two cents.

[Player-X]

I don't think it is a good idea to waste resources on such a lost cause when humanity is still more important and can still use those resources.

[shafeen]

simple thing we are supreme of all species arent we?? so because we are supreme its our duty to protect animals
also scientifically the food chain between animals break and it in turn posses more danger to other species

[Clements]

Random searches on Google pulls up many benefits of conservation. Here is an example:

http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages/whysave.html

In short: Maintaining species benefits us. To do nothing to protect or maintain species would result in damage to economies, jobs, agriculture, possible medicinal applications, ecosystems and even tourism - so it is well worth the campaigning and funding.

[jonc2006]

tourism...bah who needs it

[Project Epsilon]

244.jpg

I think they should be protected... but for the species sake, not our own. do it so that future generations can enjoy them, do it because you find them beautiful, but don't do it for our protection... its like some want to save them just so when we have the knowledge, we can exploit them later because its gonna save us all... Well you know what else would save us? Not finding new and inventive ways of killing each other for trivial reasons!

[Exodus]

Yeah, it's not cool to lose certain species forever. I know I miss the dodo.

[Demigod]

Originally Posted by Clements

Random searches on Google pulls up many benefits of conservation. Here is an example:

http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages/whysave.html

In short: Maintaining species benefits us. To do nothing to protect or maintain species would result in damage to economies, jobs, agriculture, possible medicinal applications, ecosystems and even tourism - so it is well worth the campaigning and funding.

And yet the EPA has been responsible for thousands of lost jobs and billions of lost dollars. The spotted owl is probably the greatest example of this. It was originally thought that they needed old-growth forests to survive so logging was banned in such areas. However, it was then discovered that they couuld also live in younger forests and since they started inhabiting those areas logging was banned there as well. In short, the US logging industry was literally crippled by the act and the US now has to import all their wood from other countries. The EPA has done nothing for endangered species (most of the endangered species that have recovered -- such as the blue whale -- have done so because humans have stopped harvesting them for resources) and is just a way for the government to control public and private lands (which can mess up land owners and developers really badly).

Originally Posted by Project Epsilon

I think they should be protected... but for the species sake, not our own. do it so that future generations can enjoy them, do it because you find them beautiful, but don't do it for our protection... its like some want to save them just so when we have the knowledge, we can exploit them later because its gonna save us all... Well you know what else would save us? Not finding new and inventive ways of killing each other for trivial reasons!

But if we preserve them so future generations can enjoy them and because we find them beautiful then aren't we doing it for our sake? And, if anything, we should be trying to preserve those species that are the most beneficial to us. The first priority of any species is to help themselves and it would be rather foolish for us to talk about saving the whales when millions of people are starving to death. Not everyone has the luxury of having abundances of food, medical care, and living places, and you can bet that those who are struggling to feed their families certainly won't be thinking about preserving the owls.

[TheCloudOfSmoke]

Originally Posted by Exodus

Yeah, it's not cool to lose certain species forever. I know I miss the dodo.

God only knows of all of the joys that the dodo would have given humanity if it were still here today. Everyone bow their heads for a moment of silence for the dumbass creature called the dodo who was too dumb to keep it's own species alive. Some creatures just deserve to be extint.

[jonc2006]

Originally Posted by Demigod

And yet the EPA has been responsible for thousands of lost jobs and billions of lost dollars. The spotted owl is probably the greatest example of this. It was originally thought that they needed old-growth forests to survive so logging was banned in such areas. However, it was then discovered that they couuld also live in younger forests and since they started inhabiting those areas logging was banned there as well. In short, the US logging industry was literally crippled by the act and the US now has to import all their wood from other countries. The EPA has done nothing for endangered species (most of the endangered species that have recovered -- such as the blue whale -- have done so because humans have stopped harvesting them for resources) and is just a way for the government to control public and private lands (which can mess up land owners and developers really badly).


But if we preserve them so future generations can enjoy them and because we find them beautiful then aren't we doing it for our sake? And, if anything, we should be trying to preserve those species that are the most beneficial to us. The first priority of any species is to help themselves and it would be rather foolish for us to talk about saving the whales when millions of people are starving to death. Not everyone has the luxury of having abundances of food, medical care, and living places, and you can bet that those who are struggling to feed their families certainly won't be thinking about preserving the owls.

god damn owls. they took yer job!

[TheCloudOfSmoke]

o rly?

[jonc2006]

yes rly

[ChankastRules]

Well, I think this is a typical scientifical view. Animals are also living creatures and I don't think we have the moral right to just take their territory and make them extinct. There are many people who love animals ( NO I AM NOT REFERING TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX WITH THEM ), and they want to help them simple because of this reason.

Futhermore you never know what kind of benefit a certain animal might have to nature and the country. There's this mushroom in Sweden, it's worth $1200 per kg. It will only spread through the wild boar eating it and when digest it.. visit the bathroom... and when the spores will spread and start growing in the new location. This wild boar has drastically increased in numbers because of settlement, which means the number of mushrooms has also decreased drastically. I know not all animals is like that... but we don't know what kind of effects animals have on the ecosystem yet.

[jonc2006]

Originally Posted by ChankastRules

( NO I AM NOT REFERING TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.)

awwww man...

[Clements]

Originally Posted by Demigod

And yet the EPA has been responsible for thousands of lost jobs and billions of lost dollars. The spotted owl is probably the greatest example of this. It was originally thought that they needed old-growth forests to survive so logging was banned in such areas. However, it was then discovered that they couuld also live in younger forests and since they started inhabiting those areas logging was banned there as well. In short, the US logging industry was literally crippled by the act and the US now has to import all their wood from other countries. The EPA has done nothing for endangered species (most of the endangered species that have recovered -- such as the blue whale -- have done so because humans have stopped harvesting them for resources) and is just a way for the government to control public and private lands (which can mess up land owners and developers really badly).

That seems to be an unfortunate consequence of some poorly thought out conservationism. Conservation done right has many significant benefits which I already alluded to.

Originally Posted by Demigod

And, if anything, we should be trying to preserve those species that are the most beneficial to us.

As we have only sequenced the genomes of relatively few species, who is to know (or judge) which species are important to conserve and which are not? The amount of knowledge gained from sequencing species such as the humble Fruitfly, C. elagans and Danio rerio has forwarded Scientific progress hugely so that there are whole areas of Biology dedicated to their study.

There is a lot more that can be learned, and if the species are allowed to die out, that data (which can be in the form of genes or gene products etc) is permanently unavailable to scientists. As an example, alleles available for genetically engineered (or selectively bred) crops would be lost for good. So, I would without hesitation state that all species have something that we can learn from, be it genetic, behavioral or what have you.

Originally Posted by Demigod

The first priority of any species is to help themselves and it would be rather foolish for us to talk about saving the whales when millions of people are starving to death. Not everyone has the luxury of having abundances of food, medical care, and living places, and you can bet that those who are struggling to feed their families certainly won't be thinking about preserving the owls.

Well, what do you think of those countries where Ecotourism is one of the major sources of GDP (such as Kenya, Madagascar)? If there was no conservation in (for example) Kenya, there would be plenty more starving people in some of the poorest areas of the World.

[jonc2006]

Originally Posted by Clements

That seems to be an unfortunate consequence of some poorly thought out conservationism. Conservation done right has many significant benefits which I already alluded to.



As we have only sequenced the genomes of relatively few species, who is to know (or judge) which species are important to conserve and which are not? The amount of knowledge gained from sequencing species such as the humble Fruitfly, C. elagans and Danio rerio has forwarded Scientific progress hugely so that there are whole areas of Biology dedicated to their study.

There is a lot more that can be learned, and if the species are allowed to die out, that data (which can be in the form of genes or gene products etc) is permanently unavailable to scientists. As an example, alleles available for genetically engineered (or selectively bred) crops would be lost for good. So, I would without hesitation state that all species have something that we can learn from, be it genetic, behavioral or what have you.



Well, what do you think of those countries where Ecotourism is one of the major sources of GDP (such as Kenya, Madagascar)? If there was no conservation in (for example) Kenya, there would be plenty more starving people in some of the poorest areas of the World.

just look how far genetic engineering has gotten us