1. ...we are still able to study it from a few preserved specimens, and we know its ecosystem will recover and its disappearance will have no significant affects on humans?
2. Why?
3. If we should legally protect the species, for some reason other than practical concerns, is this a form of legislating morality or personal preference?
2006-07-14 05:15:42 · 4 answers · asked by timm1776 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Please read and try to address each of the 3 questions I posed. Those that do stand a better chance of having their answer chosen as the best.
2006-07-14 05:41:00 · update #1
Again, please read point number 1 and adjust your response accordingly. Assume that we will still be able to study the endangered animal, and that we'll know with certainty that it won't have a significant effect on the ecosystem or humanity. I am trying to find out if there are valid reasons OTHER than practical concerns for protecting endangered species.
2006-07-14 07:07:56 · update #2
We should try to protect it. The value of a species is not just that it may provide a known direct benefit to us.
For the religious out there, God put man as the stewards over the earth and all organisms on it. Some believe that means we can do whatever we want,. But if I leave someone to watch over my house and yard, I expect to find it in good shape with nothing missing or broken when I return, no matter how long that takes.
No matter how much we think we know and understand the environment and the organisms in it, it is imperfect knowledge. The starting point for many medicines come from nature. There are literally millions of unique compounds in nature that are manufactured naturally by species of different organisms. What if this organism has such a compound, but we don't know it yet? After losing it, we will never know, but by protecting it, we are still capable of making that discovery.
The loss of a species is a loss of diversity. And we do not know unfailingly that the loss will have no long lasting effect on that ecosystem or that there will be no significant effect on humans. It may not be possible to quantify an effect right away, but the ripple effects may turn out to be an ecological tsunami. A species that was held in check may now multiply uncontrollably. If this species is also a vector for disease, that could be a devastating outcome.
As for legislating morality or personal preferences, that is done all of the time. The law dictates personal morality everyday. It is against the law to murder, rape, steal, assault, etc. It is also my personal preference that I am not a victim of any of those crimes.
What this question ulitmately comes down to is do we live with the certainty that by direct action or by inaction a species is lost with either no negative affect or a short term gain for humans. Or do we recognize that this species may have a currently unknown benefit to us and leave possibilities open for a future generation to discover?
2006-07-14 05:48:13 · answer #1 · answered by Raymond C 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most all the endangered species of animal bear some impact ecologically on Earth as it now stands; for them to become extinct can bear global changes. Perhaps not as radical as global warming, but animal extinction has it's own consequences.
And here's another chestnut to ponder: If an animals main and only food supply becomes extinct, never to return ever, what do you think they'll look at next for a meal? Think about it.
2006-07-14 12:20:46 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Wizard 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
aren't animals deserving of the same right to live as you stinking uncaring humans? I hope animals around the world rise up and attack the narrow-minded idiots that think we don't have the right to life
2006-07-14 12:21:56 · answer #3 · answered by Evil Scorpion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything has a place
2006-07-14 12:18:29 · answer #4 · answered by The Hit Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋