Why care about extinction?

[Old man]

Let me ask you a question. "Old man". Do you want to prevent extinction? Yes or No?

Mine? Yes.

Everything else? Immaterial.

However, since I do have a vested interest in the preservation of life (as it directly influences MY survival), I try to avoid causing extinction whenever it’s practical to do so.

We currently simply don't know which DNA of which species might be able to be used in the future to cure any number of diseases, cancer for instance. It could be that in the near future we will discover a method of using the DNA from some obscure jelly fish to breast cancer. But unfortunately that Jelly Fish might of went extinct because we didn't think it could of been of any use.

And maybe that cancer cure you’re so worried about won't be found until some new species does develop, once competition with existing organisms is removed.

The fact that we want future generations to be able to observe their beauty directly, and not just from a text book. How tragic would it be for your offspring to blame your generation for not being able to witness first hand, many species that are currently going extinct? I for one, would of loved to of seen the Dodo bird or the Thylacine, or even the recently extinct Chinese river dolphin.

What if I want my offspring to be able to observe the beauty of the NEW species that will eventually evolve to fill those unoccupied niches?

Do my ‘desires’ count?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Beauty is a personal perception; what I find beautiful, another will not. Therefore it is a subjective outcome. If you don't understand this, I seriously don't think myself or anybody can help you. You're destined to struggle.

So how are they open to inconsistency again?

That's the point; it becomes a popularity issue. If 99% of the population desire something and want it, then they will work towards achieving it. This does not necessarily make it rational. It makes it an emotional exercise.

If most of the population wants to erect a statue because it looks good and they like looking at it, and it does no harm, then I would use the same argument. Most people don't like looking at graffitti, even though there's no rational reason why graffitti shouldn't be there. It's a matter of popular desire to ban it.

If 99% of the population want a species extinct then they would need something to base that on. This doesn't negate the fact that aesthetic reasons for keeping are rational.

No Dustin. It is an emotional motivation. In ten years time you might feel otherwise. Logic is consistent, remember?

"Illogical" and "Irrational" are basically two different terms. If by "Logic" you mean "the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration" then you're using wrong terminology. The argument is that keeping species for aesthetic reasons is a 'rational' decision based on the subjective pleasures gained from keeping those species alive. Is it a "logical" decision? What rules of logic does the defense of species on the basis of aesthetics violate? It's not an "appeal to emotion" since it's not making any epistemological assertions that can be true or false. It's just motivation.

Your statement of morality in preserving things for the future is admirable, and I agree that from my view it would be a shame to lose it. But this is not a logical, rational statement, but one of personal emotions on the issue.

It's a rational statement. "Rational" is defined as "having reason or understanding". Since preventing species from going extinct based on aesthetic purposes is itself a "reason" then it's necessarily a rational stance.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And maybe that cancer cure you’re so worried about won't be found until some new species does develop, once competition with existing organisms is removed.

The species must develop from something. Do you know how long it takes for a "new species" to arise" Be it a plant species for example. A common weed. Centuries at least in most situations.

What if I want my offspring to be able to observe the beauty of the NEW species that will eventually evolve to fill those unoccupied niches?

What species would these be? They wouldn't be large enough to see without a microscope if you're talking about your immediate offspring. Species take centuries or millenniums to appear from speciation in most cases. Birds, trees, mammals...these species don't just "pop up" in a few human generations. Moreover, The way that most species are going extinct, wholesale slaughter, destruction of ecosystems, etc. It's unlikely we'll see any new species "evolving" to fill those niches anytime soon or if at all.