Should there be a need to protect or save endangered species from extinction?

[Tyrannoraptor]

Should there be a need to protect or save critically endangered species or depleting population of wildlife from extinction or hunting esp in the modern days?

[Kirby101]

Does anyone but Eric Trump argue against this?

[worstblogever]

Yes.

It's a small part of existence I like to call "actually giving a s*** about something other than yourself".

[MyriVerse]

Maybe some species deserve extinction. Nature has been killing things longer than we have. We are part of nature's way.

[Jim Kelly]

Just from a purely selfish me-me-me perspective, we should be doing this and conservative, big-money, industrialists should be putting their money into it. There are many natural adaptations that species have that we don't yet fully understand, but which we could use for ourselves and for our food production--things that would make us live longer, able to repair our bodies and rejuvenate ourselves--things that would improve production of goods. So we need to study these different species in their habitat--and find ways to extract those genes and apply them to ourselves or our food. If we lose these species, we can't get them back to use them for our own selfish interest.

[DrNewGod]

We should because we often don't have a good idea on what the extinction of any given species might do to parts of the ecosystem on which our own existence depends. Maybe it's within the range of our STEM capabilities to cope, and maybe it would be beyond not only our tools, but our species capability to adapt.

[Starter Set]

Only if human are the direct cause of the said extinction.

Otherwise, well, if the species in question has come close to extinction cause of natural factors or its own ineptitude to survive then maybe it simply means they aren't meant to continue to exist.

That's nature. That's how it works. To artificially keep alive a species who can't survive by its own is nothing but misplaced ego in our part.

[achilles]

That depends. Are the critters in question delicious? Or in the way? Or ugly?

[Starter Set]

That depends. Are the critters in question delicious? Or in the way? Or ugly?

Don't joke, only reason Pandas are still a thing is pretty much cause they are cute lol. (and cause Chinese for some reason have decided that it was a symbol of their nation)

[achilles]

Don't joke, only reason Pandas are still a thing is pretty much cause they are cute lol. (and cause Chinese for some reason have decided that it was a symbol of their nation)

Of course. Sea otters too, and many others. That, and they probably taste like rattlesnake.

[MyriVerse]

That depends. Are the critters in question delicious? Or in the way? Or ugly?

If they're delicious, then we need to teeter. Kill enough of them to enjoy, but don't kill too much that we starve.

Beauty doesn't mean anything. Pigs are adorable-- on the plate too. Cows are ugly.

If something's in the way, you move it.

[DrNewGod]

Only if human are the direct cause of the said extinction.

Otherwise, well, if the species in question has come close to extinction cause of natural factors or its own ineptitude to survive then maybe it simply means they aren't meant to continue to exist.

That's nature. That's how it works. To artificially keep alive a species who can't survive by its own is nothing but misplaced ego in our part.

Unless the species plays a role in maintaining the ecosystem on which we depend.

[Joker]

Cows are ugly.

I think you're looking for the controversial opinions thread.