Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Should all endangered species be preserved?

endangered species preserved

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 40,742 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Sometimes it's better to keep the mystery unexplained.

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:44 PM

As a list of the world's 100 most critically endangered species was published, one academic challenged the idea that all should be preserved.

The idea that all species have an equal right to exist makes as much sense as believing we should bring back dinosaurs and dodos, a scientist has suggested.

A report on the 100 most critically endangered species in the world has been published by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), with its authors arguing they should all be saved.

But Dr Sarah Chan, deputy director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at Manchester University, challenged the belief that all species should be preserved.

She said: “When we say that all species have an equal right to exist, do we mean just all of the species that currently exist? What about the species that have already gone extinct?

http://www.telegraph...ntist-says.html

Posted Image

#2    notoverrated

notoverrated

    O.O

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • courage > scooby

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:49 PM

we cant save them all that's just crazy, things will go extinct its just are job to make the number smaller.

If your not after beauty, then why are you even drawing breath?

#3    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,970 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:14 PM

If we tried to do this we would fail, because the tendency would be to save the "cuddly" animals and let the nasties go extinct. Bad news for ecology.And it would be cruel to the saved animals to put them in jail (cages) for the rest of their natural lives. Let nature prevail.

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#4    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,941 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:17 PM

I guess in a perfect world we could save them all but in reality I don't think we can or possibly should.  Lets say if the mosquito was on that list, I would say let it die.


#5    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:27 PM

Yes we should try and save them all.
We should also try and do more to limit the 'damage' that we do as a species.


#6    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,970 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:41 PM

View PostHilander, on 11 September 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

I guess in a perfect world we could save them all but in reality I don't think we can or possibly should.  Lets say if the mosquito was on that list, I would say let it die.
    Ha ha, was my post right ?, would you save a cuddly baby brown bear and let the Mosquito go ? AWWWW !  so would I ,

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#7    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 20,940 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:58 AM

I'd say no we should not save them all. Some of these animals are things like butterflies that live on only one plant that only grows in one meadow that could be wiped out by a brush fire in 10 minutes.

In Klamath Lake, in southern Oregon they have a tiny fish called a snail darter. One subspecies of this fish is endangered, and for that every year there is a court battle so that 1500 farmers can get some... some... water out of the lake for irrigation, because if the water level drops then a small percentage of these fish, which are a sub-species of a much more numerous and hardy fish, might... just might... die.

I tend to fall to the other side when Large animals are the subject, for example the Northern White Rhino is almost extinct while the Southern White Rhino is not so bad (But still bad). And I'd like to see those animals saved.

If we are talking about some animal that would go extinct anyway due to some minor environmental event (like a brush fire), because it is hyper-specialized, then I say let it go. If it is a Regional thing, where the same spider exists in the billions in Kansas, but is going extinct in Montana, I say too bad. If it is something that is dying due to human interference and will be gone entirely... then I think saving it is a good thing, even if it is just in a zoo.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#8    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,737 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • With great power, comes great irresponsibility.

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:14 AM

Fleas. They have zero right to exist. In fact, we should engineer their genocide. :innocent:

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 12 September 2012 - 11:18 AM.


#9    Bignose Goon

Bignose Goon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:41 AM

I don't agree with saving all species. Species that are extinct are extinct for a reason, they were not strong enough to survive on Earth or due to a natural disaster.  The only exception should be for species that man has contributed to their demise.


#10    jbefumo

jbefumo

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2011

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:49 AM

I suppose that would include the smallpox virus as well?


#11    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:12 PM

We need to save species that we are directly causing harm too.

Then let nature take its course. That involves extiction of some species and evolution of others.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#12    ThickasaBrick

ThickasaBrick

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "Your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." "I'll judge you all and make damn sure that no-one judges me."
    -Jethro Tull

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:16 PM

Natural selection determines which species thrive and which species go extinct. The problem is humans, when we hunt a species to extinction, destroy a habitat, or otherwise cause the death of a species. If it is natures design then let it be, if humans are to blame, there could be some validity to her statement.

Even something like mosquitoes provide a large food source for dragonflies, birds, and bats. Viruses I would not consider animals, just strands of RNA, requiring the destruction of other creatures to multiply makes it a non-living, destructive, organism.

Edited by jgorman628, 12 September 2012 - 12:23 PM.


#13    Timonthy

Timonthy

    Placid

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aust.

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

We're a species, we're natural, just another part of the cycle. Our extinction could be our doing also. Oh well...


#14    King Fluffs

King Fluffs

    The Resident Misanthrope

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Shadows protect my angel in white...

Posted 12 September 2012 - 02:01 PM

All species except spiders.

I know they play an important role, eating pests and such but they keep creeping into my bedroom at night and then I'm forced to go downstairs and fetch my sword to kill them.


#15    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,737 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • With great power, comes great irresponsibility.

Posted 12 September 2012 - 02:20 PM

Vampiric and parasitic insects have gots to go.






Also tagged with endangered, species, preserved

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users