Wouldn't it be better if we let species become extinct rather than trying to

[jeffrey b]

save them? ? All these do-gooders who try to save white rhinos and bald eagles forget the fact that life is mutating exponentially.

If we keep saving species, then we are going end up overrun by different sorts of species.

I mean all life came from one explosion of combined chemicals in the sea. Those chemicals then became a single celled animal. Then that single cell animal split, and one part of it became a plant cell and one part became of it became an animal cell.

Then all those cells then split and became fish and seaweed.

Then eventually the fish and seaweed came out of the sea, and branched off to become dinosaurs and trees and grass. Eventually it kept mutating and become butterfly's, monkeys and elephants.

The cells that stayed in the sea became jellyfish, sea omegas and whales. Some single celled animal decided to stay as single celled animals.

Anyhow with all this exponential growth we are bound to eventually become crowded out by different species. I say we let them die.

Anyhow, if the White Rhino become extinct, there is always another single celled microorganism ready to take up the challenge and become a better type of species. Just like humans took over from the dinosaurs.
Imagine if man was there to save the dinosaur. Wouldn't the whole future of mammals be effected and we would be on a different planet.

 

[Sonja]

Your logic only makes sense if you believe that animals branch off into different types of animals, organims, or plants. You logic does not include those of us who believe that the animals and plants that are here today are the same ones that were here 5000 years ago.

Speaking from my knowledge of life in general though I would say that it is important to conserve life and keep different species from extinction because every animal and plant plays and important part in this world. We never know what animal might play a huge part and which extinction could cause drastic and negative changes in our lives. By your logic something else would take it's place. But even that logic has it's flaws scientifically because we can never be sure that something else that fills up all the old species "criteria" will ever come. If not, that could be the end of humans.

 

[Cheng]

Yes, but not directly.

While human activities have drastically increased the rate at which species become extinct, I don't think this is can be attributed to our wilfully wiping them out as much as them just happening to be in the way of modernization, particularly in developing nations.

As such, while conservation efforts are truly admirable acts of altruism, I don't think they're quite as efficacious as just dropping the focus on animals and solving human problems of war, poverty and sustainable development first. It just seems logical to me that, when humans sort themselves out and reach a happy equilibrium with the environment, ESPECIALLY achieving zero population growth, the environment will sort itself out.