• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Should The Endangerd Species List Exist?

Raos

Registered Member
I was thinking about this today on the ride into work while listening to a story on the radio about a towns effort to save a local from from becoming endangered or extinct. It is generally believed that 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct. Most of those extinctions happened before humans even existed so we played no role in those species disappearing forever. That would mean that extinction is a normal part of most live cycles of a species. So if that is the case, should be be working as hard as we are to keep species from becoming extinct? humans have artificially caused extinctions to happen because of what we have done to habitats and environment and with hunting and things like that. I am not talking about not saving species that we were the cause of the extinction, but should ever endangered species be saved? Will that hold back new species from developing or cause other things to happen or not happen that we have not even considered?
 

MindoverMaster

Registered Member
The endangered list remains because many years ago, cavemen needed food to survive. We can do without. Naturally, you can't control it very easily, but idiots who kill for fun should be put in jail.
 

MindoverMaster

Registered Member
Sorry, I just woke up at that point. ;)

The endangered species list is to stop those jackasses from killing animals for no reason. Ever eat a Koala?

Remember Ace Ventura? Kind to any animal. (Well, except bats)

Do you want to die by a Sniper?
 

Raos

Registered Member
Then shouldn't the law be about keeping people from killing animals for no reason and not from keeping animals from going extinct? My point is that without human intervention, most animals go extinct, so is it really right or smart to try to prevent that from happening? I understand the rational behind protecting animals from humans who would destroy them, but is the endangered species list the right way to go about that?
 

LifeinthePond

Mark ov teh Pond
Endangered species list is put in place because animals have rights too. Sure, we kill them by accident, in defiance, and for wealth. That don't mean they should be wiped out completely. Yes, I support it. I do not believe that domestic animals should have more rights than a panda bear, or any other endangered species. With patience and dedicated people we have seen amazing things happen in wild beasts. That alone isn't the cause for protection though:

It's agriculture. Animals and plant life all have medicinal properties to them. We let a species go extinct today, we might hurt for it tomorrow.
 

Raos

Registered Member
But most species go extinct. We are artificially keeping species around longer then they would have been without human intervention. What if new species are not coming to light because natural progression is not happening because we have intervened and kept other species around longer than they should have been?
 

LifeinthePond

Mark ov teh Pond
"artificially keeping"? We are not freezing animals, man. We're preserving wildlife. It's still at risk, even with our intervention.

It's simple cause and effect. If we wipe it out for no reason, we may be in trouble later. I've seen the Lion King.

New species coming to light? Evolution is evolution. Science. I won't argue that because we built a big city HERE that without it being there some new form of lizard would have emerged and in its DNA is the cure for heart disease. We have no way of knowing that and that's why science is about the facts. The fact is: we got species that are in trouble, and we can try and prevent them from becoming extinct.
 

Raos

Registered Member
I am not talking about the species we wipe out for no reason. Yes we should do everything possible to keep that from happening. I am talking about the other species that were going to go extinct without any help from humans.

If 99% of anything that has ever lived is extinct then doesn't that say that extinction is part of the normal life cycle of a species? Are we playing G-d by trying to stop that process. Again, I am not talking about curbing human activities that hasten the process. I absolutely believe that humans should take the steps needed to ensure that we do not negatively affect other species as much as possible. Humans are not the sole cause of extinctions though. We are not even a drop in the bucket.
 

LifeinthePond

Mark ov teh Pond
Well, again, it's about the facts. God is not part of my logic. What do you/we know about the species that were going to go extinct without the help of humans? If we are just a drop in the bucket, then why should we concern ourselves with it? I don't know what you are on about. I do know that we got proof that this and that specie is under threat of extinction, and we're just doing our part to help prevent that. If it happens by some other means then shrug. We tried.

I know this was just a what if thread to begin with. Because you mentioned 99% twice and I still have no idea what's going on. To properly answer the thread though:

should be be working as hard as we are to keep species from becoming extinct?
Yes.
 
Top