Why should we preserve endangered species?

[nanoboy]

Extinction is happening in each and every one of our backyards, nanoboy. An Aussie like you should know that.

~Thylo

Excellent point. In developing countries, we also kill endangered animals if they get in the way of progress. Zoos Victoria is trying to save the lead beaters possum but the government is allowing their forests to be cut down by loggers. In Western Australia, forests are being cut down to make way for housing projects and the white-tailed black cockatoo may go extinct because they have nowhere to nest.

I don't agree with David's last sentence about those that don't care going back to watching TV. For the most part, people care about themselves first and foremost, so if your conservation gets in the way of their livelihood or culture, they would oppose you (the trafficking and use of rhino horns are a good example), unless you can change their culture or give them another source of income.

Being involved in conservation in Africa, you know how difficult it is to convince farmers to save the native wildlife out of pure love for them. Zoos Victoria had to strike a deal with villagers to make beads instead of keeping cattle in an attempt to save the Grevy's zebra: the natives couldn't care less about those particular zebras because as far as they were concerned, there are lots of black and white stripey animals, and their families welfare came first. But once Zoos Victoria showed them that beads meant less work in the hot sun and more money for their families they jumped on board, and saving wildlife was merely a by-product. Had Zoos Victoria and the Kenyan government simply created a reserve and kicked them off the land, they would not have sat back and watched TV. For the masses, ethics and morality and our debt to the planet really has no bearing on conservation. So as you say, for those like us that are passionate, it becomes our duty to convince them or to simply get the job done despite their apathy.

 

[tschandler71]

Humans, especially in developing countries where a lot of extinction is taking place, have the attitude that "it's my family and I, or the animals, and I will do what it is necessary to survive". There is rarely any feeling of "I must lower the standard of living of my family so that some animals can have a good life". This, coupled with the superiority complex humans have over animals means that a purely moral "obligation" will never save animals from extinction. For this reason, conservationists always give locals an alternative, like being employed in Eco tourism, raising rabbits instead of hunting bushmeat etc.

Most of the comments here appear to be from first world, city dwellers that think idealistically. Well, where extinction is happening is far far from ideal I'm afraid.

Have you ever taken Human Geography? The economic land use model suggests that some land is most economically used as farmland while some is best left wild. What we will have to do in the future is refine that model and be able to implement it in the third world.

For instance we raise pulpwood on mostly flat land (mostly yellow pine) but on the bottom lands around the creeks we keep a natural mixed hardwood forest (oak birch pecan an loblolly pine) because it is more economical as wildlife habitat and erosion prevention than it is for pulpwood.

 

[nanoboy]

Have you ever taken Human Geography? The economic land use model suggests that some land is most economically used as farmland while some is best left wild. What we will have to do in the future is refine that model and be able to implement it in the third world.

Try explaining that theory to the developing world. Also, by the time your model is refined, there might be nothing left.

 

[DavidBrown]

I wonder when it comes to the large macrospecies like you mentioned David that we focus on saving the "giraffe" by combining populations.

I guess it depends what you mean by "combining populations". We now know from the genetics that many of the giraffe "subspecies" are reproductively isolated from each other in the wild. With a giraffe species it may be necessary to combine individuals from different populations of the same species at some point. There is one known remaining population of wild Rothschild's giraffes. It is in Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda. The Kenyan population is now all in private ranches, conservancies, or fenced national parks. If Rothschilds giraffes are someday restored to parts of Uganda where the habitat still exists then it may take a combination of Kenyan and Ugandan individuals to do it.

 

[nanoboy]

I guess it depends what you mean by "combining populations". We now know from the genetics that many of the giraffe "subspecies" are reproductively isolated from each other in the wild. With a giraffe species it may be necessary to combine individuals from different populations of the same species at some point. There is one known remaining population of wild Rothschild's giraffes. It is in Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda. The Kenyan population is now all in private ranches, conservancies, or fenced national parks. If Rothschilds giraffes are someday restored to parts of Uganda where the habitat still exists then it may take a combination of Kenyan and Ugandan individuals to do it.

That's true. I recently read an article about this.

 

[tschandler71]

Try explaining that theory to the developing world. Also, by the time your model is refined, there might be nothing left.

Its modern farming, if they ever want to sustain a population or an economy that gets past the developing stage then they better learn.

 

[IanRRobinson]

You may call me a "bible thumper" (Im an American Southern Baptist) but I feel just the opposite. I believe that God put us here to be good stewards of the environment. I am of the active management philosophy. I believe in conservation and husbandry. I believe our resources are here for us to manage and propagate for our benefit. And I also believe that the best long term benefit is to encourage biodiversity not stifle it.

As far as endangered species, if human action has been the ultimate factor in their decline I believe its a moral obligation to ensure the species survival.

Comparing Dinosaurs and a rare species of modern hoofstock hunted to extinction is a dishonest comparison. Dinosaurs were selected by nature and died out. If I go shoot all the Hunters Hartebeest then its ultimately on me.

But many in the conservation movement probably see me as an enemy because I farm, I am a hunter, I raise pulpwood for a living, etc.

Long ago, I remember reading a definition of conservation as being "the sound management of finite resources". It sounds to me like you're probably a very good practical conservationist, tschandler..

 

[elefante]

Animals don't become endangered on their own. They are endangered because of human causes. Consider conservation righting a previous wrong.

 

[Pandaman]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

With that mentality, why care about anything?

Yes, why care about anything that doesn't contribute to our ultimate goal - exodus from this doomed planet.

What happens if we do not preserve other species? (that is, the ones we are actively destroying).

Nothing. Do you lose sleep over the dodo?

Why not ask "Why do we obliterate other species?

Might makes right. The grey squirrel feels no remorse for displacing his red cousin in Britain. All organisms are at war with each other, including within their own species.

Just because, to our knowledge, other plant and animal species have not revealed their potential to build spaceships are they somehow less valuable?

Value is subjective, however their inability to live beyond the death of our solar system means there existence is finite and any effort to preserve them is ultimately a waste of time.

If humanity has treated this planet as it has, is it moral to move on to another planet?

You assume there will be indigenous life forms. Most likely we will need to terraform the planet to make it habitable.

Why abandon earth when the sun explodes, when by that time we will either be extinct as well or have technology so advanced that we could just turn the earth into one huge spaceship

Good point, we can't predict what situation our species will be in in a million years. However current trends suggest we will need spaceships to travel in space.

One needs to understand and accept the selfish nature of "what's in it for me" humans and then pander to that.

I agree. All human actions are ultimately selfish in the sense that they result from the individual's desire to seek pleasure or avoid pain (physical or emotional). I.e. giving money to charity alleviates guilt and makes people feel good.

I look forward to reading your replies.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Might makes right

Nice to have it confirmed you believe the actions of every totalitarian regime since *ever* are justified

Value is subjective, however their inability to live beyond the death of our solar system means there existence is finite and any effort to preserve them is ultimately a waste of time.

By that note, we are currently unable to do so ourselves and thus any attempt to preserve ourselves is a waste of time. The reverse of your stance is that if we did indeed manage to uplift ourselves from this planet, our level of technological development would be such that bringing the other life on earth with us would be small potatoes.

You assume there will be indigenous life forms. Most likely we will need to terraform the planet to make it habitable.

Though presumably, returning to your first quoted statement of "might makes right", you would think nothing of exterminating any number of intelligent native species to render an exoplanet vacant for occupation.

 

[khakibob]

I just do it, because I wouldn't want to be the sort of man who didn't care.

Cheers Khakibob