Should we let some endangered species die?

Marine biologist and blogger WhySharksMatter presents the latest in his award-winning "ethical debate" series, showcasing a "hot topic" from the environmental movement, presenting both sides, and asking readers to argue it out in the comments. Since his readership includes scientists, politicians, and leaders from the environmental movement, these discussions are always interesting, and this one is sure to generate some strong opinions.

WhySharksMatter is claiming in this ethical debate that North Atlantic Right Whales, one of the most endangered animals on Earth, are going to go extinct whether or not we help them, and therefore we should stop wasting so much of the environmental movement's limited resources on protecting them.

"For the sake of this debate, I will concede the following points (i.e. there is no need to debate them any further).

* Right whales are a unique and interesting animal. They, like us, are mammals.

* Without our protection, they will certainly go extinct

* It is undeniably, 100% our fault that they are so endangered in the first place"


From the Upcoming ueue, submitted by whysharksmatter.

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

The real question: shouldn't we deny the unreasonable energy flow and posessions that the angry, irrational unwashed masses demand?

Conservation is the ultimate conservatism.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ gdw3
Adaption tends to take little time as it is a change in populations actions. ( that is: Colonialist adapted to the new england climate in a generation, by changing their actions)

Evolution takes generations and depends on the speed at which a species generates new generations. So ecoli will evolve faster than a Right Whale.

I don't think it's possible to say how we would have turned out if we imposed current policies and ideals on our past selves. One could argue if we had the feelings toward the whale as we do now we wouldn't have had appropriate lubrication for motors that drove the industrial revolution. But one could also argue that human are highly inventive and they would have developed other lubrication.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think that if we went back and imposed the policies and ideals we use today we would be doomed to remain one cell organisms floating in the ocean. The first time someone multiplied into a two cell organism all hell would break loose.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
If a species is going due to human meddling – direct, we're killing these things when we shouldn't – then we must make amends by trying to save them.

If a species is going extinct naturally, then we should let it die out – as attempting to stave off extinction of such a thing is as damaging to the natural order of things as killing off a species that is not dying out naturally.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
We all have to agree that it takes massive amounts og resources to study and preserve the habitats of animals. If a species dies out because we can't take care of it then so be it. If any are left over after we straighten our own problems I'll give them a hand.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Email This Post to a Friend
"Should we let some endangered species die?"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More