do any atheists believe in animal conservation and why?

Question

i thought some atheists believed in survival of the fittest. it will take a long time for animals to reach humans in terms of adaption on the planet.

why not compete with animals-life is very short

Answer 1

Yes

Keeping the diversity of the planet is very important for all of us.
The world is not here for just humans.

Without animals there would be know humans.

Answer 2

Absolutely. I think the planet evolved with a delicate balance that must be maintained, and animals are a huge part of that. The ecosystem must be stable for anyone or thing to survive. I also believe that man is just an animal, albeit an intelligent one, and we have no right to eradicate other species who have equal rights to live because of our selfishness. From an evolution standpoint, which I think is where you're coming from, considering how long evolution can take it's our duty as sensient beings to help control other species' natural development along the way. The way we've poisoned the environment has already meant we've impacted this too much, which is why we need to just let other species have their own destiny.

Answer 3

I'm an atheist, and I believe in animal conservation.

Why? Because animals have a right to life as much as any human, we are not that superior, just very intelligent apes in a way, and we have no right to destroy other creatures/habitats/ecosystems like we do...

Why would atheists not believe in conservation particularly? I'll never forget a very zealous religious fellow I met once, and he took exception to my being a vegetarian, saying 'god has put man in charge of all animals on earth, what right do you have to refuse food put before you by him?' That attitude isn't far off from saying all resources on earth are man's to be tapped as he sees fit, when he sees fit...

Answer 4

you are grasping at straws looking for a reason to justify christianity and by the way the Pope is a man nothing more and nothing less he has zero Magical powersor Divine powers in any way shape or form. get over that illusion. since you brought up the pope consider this ; in the catholic church the pope is the only head of state and is aware of any and all aspects of running the empire . the lowliest Priest cannot change locations without the express permission of the pope to do so. therefore the Pope is aware of why any priest is being relocated and thus aware of the fact that many priests were relocated to avoid prosecution for Sexually Molesting children. as such the Cardinals and Pope are just as guilty as the sons of bitches that were buggering little boys in the sanctity of the damn church. spare us the concept of your freakin pope as a holier than thou individual it is Bull S H I T. the christions in China are not trying to save animals they are trying to bring more sheep into the flock to be exploited for the benefit of the church. don't be so Naive.

Answer 5

A belief (or non-belief) in a god or God does not stop them from having a conscience.

My wife is very into helping animal species that are being wiped out by human encroachment, as they have a right to live as well.

Answer 6

Yes. Because biodiversity is a good thing.

I find it interesting that your question seems to imply that you do not expect atheists to believe in animal conservation.

EDIT:

To address your follow-up points:

1) Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of at the expense of all other species. After all, if a predator becomes so successful at hunting, it could potentially cause its prey to become extinct. The predator then faces the risk of extinction itself. However, what we would normally see is, once the numbers of prey animals drops below a certain number, predators will start to die from starvation, especially as predators (big cats, for example) tend to be teritorial. The ones with prey animals in their territory will survive, while the ones without a source of food in their range will struggle. Once areas with low numbers of predators appear, the prey animals will exploit these areas and their numbers will recover. It time, the predators numbers' will increase again, and the cycle continues.

With our complex social systems, such as globalisation and farming, however, humans have circumvented this system. We are so resourceful at finding sources of food that, in general, we don't really worry about one species becoming extinct. We're not reliant on one food source.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you have to be careful when you use the phrase "survival of the fittest". A species will never survive if it causes all other species to die out, because there simply won't be anything left for it to eat. The other thing with "survival of the fittest" is that it refers more to either within-species competition (i.e. the individuals within a species that are best able to produce successful offspring are the ones who will do so, thus perpetuation their genes) and to species who are in direct competition. A predator is not, as such, in competition with its prey, rather it is in competition with similar predators. An example would be the competition that may have happened between neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans (off the top of my head, I think this was about a million years ago, but I am ready to stand corrected). Both species were similar in size, etc., and hunted the same types of prey. The neanderthals became extinct while the "fitter" modern humans survived, primarily because of their greater intelligence and adaptability.

2) This leads me on to your second point: "why not compete with animals-life is very short". What species are we actually going to compete with? Basically, we've won! There are now no comparable species (such as neanderthals) vying with us for our place on the food chain. Neither are there any real predators (apart from perhaps the occasional man-eating shark or tiger, which don't pose any significant threat to the survival of the human species).

Come to think of it, we do have some predators: infectious diseases. Some believe that the most serious threats to human survival are bacterial and viral infections. We are "competing" with these, however, in the form of billions of dollars worth of medical research that goes into the development of treating infectious disease.

3) The other thing you say is that: "it will take a long time for animals to reach humans in terms of adaption on the planet." This depends on what you mean by "adaption". The evolutionary definition of the word means, roughly, the development of the ability to survive in a particular niche in the eco system. As I have said, we are very successful at filling our niche at the top of the food chain. We have done this by being incredibly intelligent. No animal can compete with us in terms of intelligence.

However, if you just look at the ability of a species to survive (by whatever means necessary), there are others that have done considerably better than we have, in many respects. The Antarctic Krill is a small shrimp-like creature. The total weight (biomass) of all the Antarctic Krill in the oceans is around 500,000,000 tonnes, approximately twice that of all humans. As each one weighs approximately 2g, there's a lot of them! Furthermore, there's evidence to suggest that the species is around 20m years old (humans and chimpansees may have separated from their common ancestor 4 million years ago or less).

So we're not the most successful as defined by biomass, number of individuals, nor the length of time the species has survived. There are hundreds of other measures of success on which we are not the most successful animal: size, speed, strength, eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, ability to hold our breath/breathe underwater, ability to create light using our bodies (Krill, again!), or to fly. Intelligence is basically the only thing that makes us the most successful, and it is intelligence that not only causes us to have a disproportionate impact on the world and on other species, but also causes us to question the negative aspects of that impact.

(In fact, you could even argue that our impact is less than some other species. Plankton is another incredibly abundant species. If it became extinct, there would be a whole world of trouble. Not only is it the basis of the marine ecosystem, but it is crucial to the photosynthesis that produced the oxygen we need to stay alive. Now that's influence!)

Answer 7

Evolution is one thing and should happen naturally, however mankind has done such a job of eliminating so many species through selfish abuse of the world around us, including parts of space we've already gotten to, that it's important to try to protect what's left out of kindness.

It's like a person who's spent years living with someone, by choice, who's a chain smoker and develops lung cancer because of it. Should we deny the victim health care because they CHOSE to live with that person? COMPASSION, ALTRUISM... the logical choices.

_()_

Answer 8

What on earth has animal conservation got to do with not believing in imaginary/invisible creatures?

Answer 9

I like having animals around, even if they should've been extinct. Who doesn't want to have fuzzy panda bears in the world?

Answer 10

You stumped me. I'm not an atheist, but what does animal conservation have to do with religion unless you slay animals as part of your ceremonies?