Are they right to save every single species on the brink of extinction? Is THAT is the new natural progression of this planet is to let nothing go extinct? I think we are beginning to REALLY mess up the planet when we step in on one of natures greatest processes.
no, they are not right…
they are a bunch of left wing socialists who desire a totalitarian state where they can demand how you will live your life…
they should be rejected like the miscreants they are…
-Imp
you are ignoring the fact that most species on the eve of extinction are there because of human nature, not because of nature’s own work. if are arguing that tempering with nature the way man did (and still does) is part of evolution and is in nature’s scheme for progress, well, you have a lot of convincing to do.
Cynical question: does it matter if a species goes extinct?
What effect will it have on the planet?
The dodod disappeared and as far as I can tell, teh consequnce has been zero.
First off, they’re not trying to save every single species. They could care less about most. Man is so far from nature it’s not even worth talking about. The very fact of dominating nature itself removes us and every other species from nature.
And impenitent, are you a totalitarian capitalist?
“Man is so far from nature it’s not even worth talking about.”
totalitarian capitalist? no…
-Imp
They’re not trying to save every species: Mostly, they don’t care
Humanities dominion over nature removes every species from nature.
Incidentally, Impenitent, are you a totalitarian capitalist?
I would have liked to see a blue whale…
…the consequence of causing the extinction of an animal is nullifying the pleasure of seeing it in nature. I can remember having a feeling of freedom and pride by seeing a bald eagle in its natural enviroment…not as a picture or some dead bird on a wall.
Sagesound,
Fair enough.
But on the scale of the universe, or on that of the Earth, your reason doesn’t sound very weighty.
If I get pleasure from looking at an old building, can I really expect someone to preserve it? Only for me? At great cost? for no useful purpose. Difficult case to make.
noel
It is not natural progression when we humans are the cause of the extinction of a species. Trying to preserve a species is just cleaning up after ourselves and keeping the ecosystem in balance. We have a very rudimentary understanding of how the natural world functions,yet we freely f*ck around with it every chance we get. sheesh… 
OFCOURSE everything humans do is part of nature… Look up the definition of nature. Though there are many definitions, to me, nature is the world out there, reality, and the laws that govern it. Gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetism, so on so forth. We are in no way more powerfull than nature, we ARE nature. We are forced to submit to the aformentioned laws just as everything else in the universe. So anything we do is natural. If we cause the extinction of a species, then thats perfectly natural. Does the fact that its perfectly natural mean we should do it? Was the supposed meteor that caused the extinction of the dinos natural, and if it is, does that make it a good thing? Who cares, natural or not should have no bearing on our decisions. Personally, I dont see a reason to save a species, unless they produce something we want or need. Natural as a clasification just classifies the objective reality. If you want to change its meaning in order to argue for making the world the way you want it, then define how you mean it. But until then, we and everything we do is nature…
RussianTank.
Very good point!
I may even agre with you. Except that Man can choose to do right or wrong, and a meteor does not. Nothing escapes gravity, but Man has free will, so I think the analogy may be flawed.
1)Who defines what right and wrong are?
2)Prove man has free will.
Look I feel that we as humans have greatly changed the face of the earth and that animals should adapt to the new enviroment ie cities and stuff. I mean really have you ever been in a city at night? They are tons of creatures that have adapted to us. rats and horses come to mind for speices that have proliferated because of us, dogs, cats, deer, elk, racoons, emus, and other various crazy creatures live in cites and are doing quiet well. There is a bird in london that has a song that louder than the city, if has this because its mate has to hear and the really loud song aids it. The dodo, come on really a flightles bird confined to only one island and its as dumb as a rock. It was bound to die sometime. I feel that mother nature is doing a great job. but heres the kicker, we as humans are the most aboundant species on earth, we have no natural predator besides ourselves, so when will an animal develop to hunt humans and only humans, the mimic comes to mind…and the relic and relique…
Thank you noel, but your critiques fall on deaf ears, for the reason that satanical mentioned. I am a determinist, and thus I am as sure as can be that “the will” is nothing but a definate set of possibilities. Many more possibilities than a meteor yes, but it is a set restrained by the laws of the universe none-the-less. To have free will in my opinion means that your set is not restrained by the set of possibilities of another human being. It is a term that only applies to the human societal structure. But if you think about it, there really is no diffirence between being held prisoner by a bear in a cave (he is standing at the entrance becuase he is hungry), being stuck in a burning building with flames blocking your path in every direction, or being imprisoned by a human with a gun who wants youre bank account number. They are all forces of nature. Weve just found that we can exert some form of control on the human through complex comunication. Thats the only diffirence I see.
Thus, considering this cause-effect view of the world, I have no use for right and wrong. Our dicisions and consequent actions are just as right or wrong as that meteor. Now, I am not trying to start a discussion here, there are plenty of other threads about this. Read more about my philosophy if you wish on the philosophy board, its called “What do you think about my philosophy?” I just wanted you to know that it will be very hard for you to critique me without addressing my whole view on life. Thanks for the complement though 
Shouldn’t you be trying to convince us that humanity ISN’T a part of nature and “nature’s work”? (And when did nature become sentient and get a job?)
Oh?
Does not the U.S. Government preserve national sites of historical or symbolic value? Monticello for example…
The case is not difficult if it is a matter of national pride.
Well so far as we can see there is roughly a mass extinction every 26 million years.
Basically there have been at least two completely devistating extinctions and they had nothing to do with humans. Each of them killed about 90% of plants animals including mammals on earth.
We have nothing on mother nature when it comes to destroying life.
There is a theory about something called the nexus, which is basically suppossed to be the sister dark star of our sun.
As our solar system swing around the galaxy it actually dips up and down.
One reason is that this dark star and our sun are swinging and every 26 million years, it is hypothesized that this dark star brings comets and debre which pelt the Earth which would explain many of the extinctions.
So far the Dark star is hypothesized to be at its furthest distance away which means we could have about 10 million years to prepare.
In ten million years there are better chances that the Ubermensch will be running the world and have methods of deflecting comets and other world-devastating objects from the depths of space.
Besides…astrophysics suggest that the world will end in about four billion years when our sun dies and turns into a black dwarf, essentially nuking our solar system in the process, and I don’t mean microwave…
Does it matter if creatures and plants go extinct? Should we try to protect them? Note: This is my opinion.
I believe we should try to prevent species from extinction that we are un-naturally pushing out of existence. There is a lot of beauty in other organisms, and we can also learn a lot from them. Once they are gone mankind will only have stories and photos of Nature’s beautiful artwork. Nature is the greatest artist and to destroy her work is to destroy life itself. Monet and Bizet are two of my favorite artists, but what human creation can compare to the Red Wood, the Eagle, the Leopard, the Puffin, or the Butterfly?
However everything has it’s time, for the sun will one day swallow us. And the time will come when Nature’s eternal cycle will once again repeat itself.
~Truth~