Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Still Waters

Should all endangered species be preserved?

43 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Spid3rCyd3
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that would include the smallpox virus as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vampiric and parasitic insects have gots to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of these comments,well played U.M community...well played..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then, the question that should be posed is, "Do we have the right to determine what species lives, and what species dies?". We do not own this planet - we inhabit it. There is a difference.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who are we to say what other animal has a right to exist or not. They are part of the ecosystem and have reasons for being here even if we do not like some of those reasons. As another poster stated we do not own this planet, we inhabit it. Dr. Chan is grasping at straws using examples just to prove HER point of view. We are the reason behind many loses of animals in the eco system and we will end up like the dinosaurs if we are not careful. We have no clue to the interconnection of species on this planet, and if we mess with one we change the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The porcupine has no purpose whatsoever. On the other hand Pygmies have a right and yet are about to become extinct during this generation. The northern timber wolf went extinct in the early 70's It was a brown and black short wire haired beast with a stature nearly about waist high. The Northern black panther may still exist but no sightings has been reported since the early 70's

Edited by cerberusxp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The porcupine has no purpose whatsoever. On the other hand Pygmies have a right and yet are about to become extinct during this generation.

Humans don't really demonstrate any more observable "purpose" than porcupines. We all just need to stay alive long enough to replicate our DNA- when that goal can't be met, we go extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All pigeons must die!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All species deserve the right to not be driven to extinction by the human race.

That's what's really being said, Idiot Scientist Sarah Chan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then, the question that should be posed is, "Do we have the right to determine what species lives, and what species dies?". We do not own this planet - we inhabit it. There is a difference.

I'd say yes. We do have that right. By right of being the most intellegent (debatable) and technologically advanced. Someone has to make these decisions. Also morally and religiously we have the right and obligation to manage and help/control everything in this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! Scrap-monkeys! They need to go NOW! I see them rolling around all day in dumpsters, they filth! And dangerous in society...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say yes. We do have that right. By right of being the most intellegent (debatable) and technologically advanced. Someone has to make these decisions. Also morally and religiously we have the right and obligation to manage and help/control everything in this world.

Just because we are more intelligent, and technologically advanced, that doesn't give us the right to initialize the eradication of varying species. Using your logic, an extraterrestrial civilization has the right to come and take this planet, simply because they are more intelligent, and technologically capable of doing so.

In the grand scheme of things, we are as equally useless as the porcupine, the cockroach, the butterfly, the sloth, etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.