4 ms·

While I understand (and agree with to some extent) the sentiment, I hate that this is the first and most prevalent argument. Instead of worrying about the loss

While I understand (and agree with to some extent) the sentiment, I hate that this is the first and most prevalent argument. Instead of worrying about the loss of individuals that make up a species, the concern always seems to be what humans are going to miss out on being able to look. If we focused more on valuing the individual organisms and how we interact with them, then maybe we wouldn't get into this position so frequently.

cup-of-tea 9y ago
Definitely agree with you, but if people can't even change their lifestyle for their own children I don't think they're going to do it for giraffes.
thaumaturgy 9y ago
In "What You Should Know About Politics ... But Don't", these two points of view are labeled "environmental moralists" and "environmental utilitarians". For the most part, the goals remain the same, but the reasons given for those goals are different. Things tend to break down a bit when utilitarians try to force moralists to adopt their view, or vice-versa. In the end, it should just be sufficient to have some reason to care about the environment.
k__ 9y ago
Why should we mourn the loss of a species? We lost species all the time, it's a normal part of evolution. Also, why is it sadder that humans lead to their extinction than when other species extinct each other?
- QuotedForTruth 9y ago
  The ridiculous rate at which it is happening is not a normal part of evolution. It is the 6th great extinction event known. [1] Its "sadder" because its preventable. Humans are self aware and know that we are causing this. If we change our behavior it wont happen. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
  - weregiraffe 9y ago
    There is nothing "normal" about evolution, unless you include everything in it. Humans are a results of evolution, like any other species. And great extinctions are completely natural.
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      Generally mass extinctions weren't directly caused by the actions of one particular species, though…
      - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
        Except that isn't necessarily true. Wasn't one of the first major extinction events caused by over-oxygenation of the environment?
        saagarjha 9y ago
        1. Cyanobacteria aren’t one species and 2. on the whole, oxygenation didn’t work out so well for the anaerobic bacteria that caused it, did it?
    - pharrington 9y ago
      Great extinctions are "natural" where natural means "part of the universe." There is enormous debate as to which and by how much great extinctions were "natural" where natural means "resulting from the system level dynamics of the ecosystem in question."
- jogjayr 9y ago
  It's not sad by itself. Life on earth will recover eventually, as it has done after previous periods of mass extinction. On a geological timescale everything will be all right. But let's be clear, right now, we are sh*tting where we eat. There will be consequences for us as a species if we carry on the way we're going. At best our civilization will be greatly reduced in advancement, quality of life, and many will die in the process. At worst we'll join all the other extinct species.
- Falling3 9y ago
  I don't think we should. I don't see any rational argument for the inherent moral value of a species. And we should keep in mind that species is just one rung on the taxonomic ladder. It's also an arbitrary grouping with multiple, competing definitions. I'm saddened by the pain and death of individual organisms, but not the loss of a species that they make up.

cup-of-tea 9y ago

Definitely agree with you, but if people can't even change their lifestyle for their own children I don't think they're going to do it for giraffes.

thaumaturgy 9y ago

In "What You Should Know About Politics ... But Don't", these two points of view are labeled "environmental moralists" and "environmental utilitarians". For the most part, the goals remain the same, but the reasons given for those goals are different. Things tend to break down a bit when utilitarians try to force moralists to adopt their view, or vice-versa. In the end, it should just be sufficient to have some reason to care about the environment.

k__ 9y ago

Why should we mourn the loss of a species? We lost species all the time, it's a normal part of evolution. Also, why is it sadder that humans lead to their extinction than when other species extinct each other?

QuotedForTruth 9y ago
The ridiculous rate at which it is happening is not a normal part of evolution. It is the 6th great extinction event known. [1] Its "sadder" because its preventable. Humans are self aware and know that we are causing this. If we change our behavior it wont happen. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
- weregiraffe 9y ago
  There is nothing "normal" about evolution, unless you include everything in it. Humans are a results of evolution, like any other species. And great extinctions are completely natural.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    Generally mass extinctions weren't directly caused by the actions of one particular species, though…
    - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
      Except that isn't necessarily true. Wasn't one of the first major extinction events caused by over-oxygenation of the environment?
      - saagarjha 9y ago
        1. Cyanobacteria aren’t one species and 2. on the whole, oxygenation didn’t work out so well for the anaerobic bacteria that caused it, did it?
  - pharrington 9y ago
    Great extinctions are "natural" where natural means "part of the universe." There is enormous debate as to which and by how much great extinctions were "natural" where natural means "resulting from the system level dynamics of the ecosystem in question."
jogjayr 9y ago
It's not sad by itself. Life on earth will recover eventually, as it has done after previous periods of mass extinction. On a geological timescale everything will be all right. But let's be clear, right now, we are sh*tting where we eat. There will be consequences for us as a species if we carry on the way we're going. At best our civilization will be greatly reduced in advancement, quality of life, and many will die in the process. At worst we'll join all the other extinct species.
Falling3 9y ago
I don't think we should. I don't see any rational argument for the inherent moral value of a species. And we should keep in mind that species is just one rung on the taxonomic ladder. It's also an arbitrary grouping with multiple, competing definitions. I'm saddened by the pain and death of individual organisms, but not the loss of a species that they make up.