Scientist theroize throughout the worlds histroy 99% of the worlds species has become extinct. Climate changes and Natural selection causing genectic mutations, brings forth new life and exterminates others. Should we interfere with Nature`s balance? If we cause a species to be on the brink of extinction are we obligated to save it?
2007-06-15 04:41:56 · 8 answers · asked by Future 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Some would consider it an obligation... but I don't think we have to get anywhere near that altruistic.
Think about this: pretty much all our modern medicines were obtained from natural sources (penicillin). Many of the most useful inventions were produced by duplicating nature (velcro). And what we know even about the species we are most familiar with is really very small.
Doesn't it stand to reason that it's not only possible, but probably close to a certainty that there are many more such treasures to be found among nature's creatures? Wouldn't we be fools to let them just slip away from us (or worse - to destroy them) when we could prevent it?
So yes. OF COURSE we should save as many species as we can. If we have the ability, we should even BRING BACK extinct species. They have a potential which is as staggeringly great as it is unmeasured.
Nature did not always save them. But we can learn from nature and eventually do BETTER than nature. THAT is our gift.
2007-06-15 07:19:41 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow. I'm against cloning but for saving endangered animals. Very interesting question you pose. I think I'd be for it for this reason. But maybe there's a reason they're dying off --like maybe it's some sort of natural thing that we don't know about and if we mess with it it screws everything up. . .
2007-06-15 11:50:29 · answer #2 · answered by sweets 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Besides, scientists don't even know how many species there were or are, so a statement on the percentage or rate of extinction cannot be considered accurate.
2007-06-15 11:55:52 · answer #3 · answered by mrearly2 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
we are not obligated to do anything. But, we are nature and the nature , through us, saves (by cloning) the species it desires!
2007-06-15 11:51:16 · answer #4 · answered by ovi_mayday 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we are at fault, we are duty bound to rectify the harm as best we can. If this includes cloning, so be it.
2007-06-15 11:54:16 · answer #5 · answered by Sophist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
there is something beyond darwin's natural selection.....i'll give my food to my ill mom as i can live without it at least tonight. i won't think abt my survival. duty. love. they have no derth. these beautiful things/feelings can only be enjoyed this way only.
2007-06-15 13:07:52 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ok..."Nature's balance"??? are you smoking weed??? humans interfere ALL the time with "Nature's balance" why shouldn't we fix what we break? although we should be careful about how we do it... don't want a small genetic code variation- large is better!... i be you a conservative...hun!??
2007-06-15 11:59:27 · answer #7 · answered by darkdantedevildemin 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd say wrong due to they have outtlived there purpose...washing machines are much more effeciant than washing boards....
2007-06-15 11:58:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋