Should Humans Save Endangered Species?

[Kavik]

I believe in conservationism, so I lean towards protecting endangered species, particularly when the cause of the endangerment is man-made. However, it is interesting that man interferes in natural selection by breeding wild animals in captivity (and possibly creating artificial selection by doing so). Is there really a point in protecting certain species from extinction other than the responsibility we feel as humans? Some species are supposedly important for the ecology of certain environments, but, if they're endangered, the ecological impact has probably already been realized.

Taking it a step further, should humans bring extinct animals back à la Jurassic Park, if we had the technology? Or would that be taking things too far?

What think ye?

[tp4tissue]

Every wild animal is an endangered Animal.

The current category is very Speciest centric around HUMANS vs NON-Humans.  This does not reflect the reality that is the Ecosphere of Planet Earth,  In which, all animals occupy important and overlooked ecological roles, From bees, to ants, to pandas to tortoises.

Animal agriculture is the primary driver of ecological damage, climate change, and DISEASE.

In terms of dry matter biomass, our “livestock” or farmed animals consume more than 80% of the food that we extract from the planet in order to provide just 15% of the food (including “seafood”) that humans consume

[fohat.digs]

It depends.

Often it is a futile exercise, but sometimes it can be miraculous. Usually, it is the top predators that get the headlines, but there are other success stories.

Just this morning on NPR, there was a piece on the spectacular results of a 10-year ban on menhaden fishing in the NE which rebuilt not just these little fishies themselves, but an ecosystem that they supported.

There are bright spots out there from time to time.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/12/1045182646/catch-limits-imposed-on-menhaden-have-sparked-a-population-rebound

[Findecanor]

Taking it a step further, should humans bring extinct animals back à la Jurassic Park, if we had the technology? Or would that be taking things too far?

I think that humanity should prepare for bringing back animals in the future - animals that have yet not gone extinct but very well could.
Just like we have seed banks, we could have genome banks from animals.

[Olumin]

From a purely pragmatic and objective point of view, since humans are part of the natural ecosystem, it is impossible for us, or any animal, to "interfere" with natural selection. We are simply part of it. Humans cannot destroy the ecosystem, but we are a catalyst for change. So are many other things. There have been mass extinctions throughout history which completely changed the ecosystem. One could even argue that by trying to preserve the current variety of species on earth, we are interfering in the natural changing and adapting of the ecosystem.

Ultimately we are part of nature, not above or separate from it. Preserving a species or driving one to extinction is not inherently positive or negative. Nature doesn't care, and we just play our part. And weather we, a asteroid strike, a gamma ray burst from a nearby supernova, or an alien species wipe out all life on earth, all is equally natural. Objectively is doesn't matter, and whatever we decide to do is fine. 

[tp4tissue]

From a purely pragmatic and objective point of view, since humans are part of the natural ecosystem, it is impossible for us, or any animal, to "interfere" with natural selection. We are simply part of it. Humans cannot destroy the ecosystem, but we are a catalyst for change. So are many other things. There have been mass extinctions throughout history which completely changed the ecosystem. One could even argue that by trying to preserve the current variety of species on earth, we are interfering in the natural changing and adapting of the ecosystem.

Ultimately we are part of nature, not above or separate from it. Preserving a species or driving one to extinction is not inherently positive or negative. Nature doesn't care, and we just play our part. And weather we, a asteroid strike, a gamma ray burst from a nearby supernova, or an alien species wipe out all life on earth, all is equally natural. Objectively is doesn't matter, and whatever we decide to do is fine. 

From the perspective of an IMPARTIAL GOD.  That is correct.

Except You're not him.   You're a lowly hughmahn..

It is in OUR interest, given OUR limited intellect to make the BEST decision FOR OURSELVES, the best science Indicates that what is Better for the Eco-sphere, is ALSO what's best for humans.

Animal agriculture is a human decision that is faulty and destructive to ALL,   INCLUDING humans.

PLANETS are NOT IMMORTAL.  They can EASILY Fail.     It is in Our best interest to EAT VEGGIES.

[Findecanor]

Humans are sentient, self-aware and able to influence our environment on a macro level. Endangered species are not.

[kurplop]

Humans are sentient, self-aware and able to influence our environment on a macro level. Endangered species are not.

To hear doomsayers talk, humans are an endangered species

[fohat.digs]

humans are an endangered species

Hardly!
The planet Earth is extravagantly overpopulated with humans.
A single billion persons would be more than enough to adequately populate our living space.

[Olumin]

Stable total human population is prob. around 500mil.

Sentience is an entirely subjective concept, it is also a spectrum. Again, Humans are being elevated, or separated from the rest of the animal species on earth. At its most basic, humans are no different then any other animal. Higher intelligence and sapience are concepts that are created ​and only meaningful to other humans.

Humans have no inherent obligation towards any other species on the planet, and no inherent responsibilities. Such points of view are entirely subjective and grounded in philosophy and ethics.

Nothing is good or bad for the ecosystem, that is again, subjective human judgement. There is no good or bad in nature. Weather a species goes extinct or not is objectively irrelevant. What is important to see here is the bigger picture. There is no objective success or failure in nature.

[tp4tissue]

Nothing is good or bad for the ecosystem, that is again, subjective human judgement. There is no good or bad in nature. Weather a species goes extinct or not is objectively irrelevant. What is important to see here is the bigger picture. There is no objective success or failure in nature.

If we are ourselves the composite of the entire universe,  perhaps there is not.

But we are not that, we function at the limited level of being a small-PART of the universe.  We are only in charge of what we understand.   

The basic life form only understands life, it may be an arbitrary distinction to a GOD, but not to humans.

You are too basic to discuss the topic you disagree with.  No entity smaller than the whole can make those claims.

[Olumin]

God is nature = everything that IS. I am nature. To no lesser degree then anything else. To the universe it does not matter how small a part of the whole is,
every part is equally meaningful or meaningless. How much a part is aware or how much it understands of the whole is irrelevant.
Which means everything living or dead is god to equal degree. There is no higher or lower authority then me. The Universe has no hierarchy.

The question of what is right or wrong is intrinsically meaningless as it is a moral question, morals are arbitrary, so is the answer you give. 
Approaching the topic from a purely objective point of view, the answer becomes clear: No. There is no obligation except the obligation one places in one's self.
When morals and philosophy are considered, the answer becomes meaningless.

[tp4tissue]

Incorrect,  You do not know with ANY certainty that that is the case.

We can speculate, and as long as all of these decisions exist IN our localized speculation, there IS a higher efficiency decision that can be ascertained relative to OUR frame as long as the frame increases in size.

The obligation exists Relative TO US.

You are not objective, you're playing word games.

[noisyturtle]

Well at the very least we shouldn't be actively killing them and destroying their living areas. I reckon if we stopped doing that things would balance out.
But greed and expansionism are baked into human existence, and just like we kill or subjugate people who don't agree with us, so do we with animals.

I am of the mind live and let live. If I see a snake in my yard I'll let it be, but I know plenty of people who's first reaction is smashing it with a rock.

[Findecanor]

Humans have no inherent obligation towards any other species on the planet, and no inherent responsibilities. Such points of view are entirely subjective and grounded in philosophy and ethics.

That the humans have responsibility for the natural world is part of every major religion.

More over, the human race has responsibility for itself in the long run, to take care of its habitat.

But I see that your view is subjective and grounded in the philosophy of nihilism. Or perhaps your philosophy is that of finding ways to justify being an *******. The latter is becoming more common these days, and is the actual driving force behind both many "libertarians" and right-wing activists these days.

[Olumin]

That the humans have responsibility for the natural world is part of every major religion.

More over, the human race has responsibility for itself in the long run, to take care of its habitat.

But I see that your view is subjective and grounded in the philosophy of nihilism. Or perhaps your philosophy is that of finding ways to justify being an *******. The latter is becoming more common these days, and is the actual driving force behind both many "libertarians" and right-wing activists these days.

I am not talking about religion. The concept of god was brought up, I simply defined god as being nature, meaning all that exists, for the sake of the argument.

No being has any inherent responsibilities, weather it lives or dies is irrelevant.

Nihilism is the lack of all philosophy & belief, not a philosophy & belief in and of itself, although it may commonly be defined that way. If you please it is the believe in nothing.
It is the baseline, uncolored, objective view of the world.
Meaning is not inherent but created & arbitrary, changing depending on personal believes, time, society and emotional disposition.
As opposed to nihilists, I do think there is objective truth and knowledge. After all reality has shape and substance, and those characteristics can be defined, even if they dont hold any inherent meaning.

In order to ascertain objective truth, subjective beliefs and philosophies have to be disregarded.

[chyros]

Only if they're cute and cuddly.

Like vegetarianism .

[tp4tissue]

In order to ascertain objective truth, subjective beliefs and philosophies have to be disregarded.

That's wrong, subjective belief however obscure forms the same tapestry of arbitrary data to which you refer to as God/nature.

Whatever you define nihilism to be, it is no less subjective than any other frame as quantized by the limited consciousness of man.

You're clearly contradicting yourself.

[fohat.digs]

to justify being an *******

is the actual driving force behind both many "libertarians" and right-wing activists these days.

This phenomenon was deep in the shadows until the late-1970s. If you look at most "libertarian/far right" rhetoric before that time it was mostly religiously agnostic, even taking a generally dim view of Christianity. Obviously, what is now recognized as "right wing/libertarian ideology" is profoundly anti-social and in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus who held the rich in contempt and taught that it was their obligation to pay their taxes and "feed the poor" ....

For example, if you read "The Turner Diaries" (one of the last racist/revolutionary books written before the "Reagan Revolution") you find Turner looking askance at "the Christians" because they believe that they should "love their fellow man" and their emphasis on conventional morality precludes things like lawlessness, random killing, and ethnic cleansing.

Somehow, and this has flummoxed me for 4 decades, Reagan was able to marry the ferociously anti-social, callous, and greedy ideology of the "libertarian" ultra-wealthy into the thought process of the mainstream Christian "moral majority" and that union has survived to this day.

How, in any universe, could Evangelicals enthusiastically embrace Donald Trump as their beloved champion?

That is not a rhetorical question.