4 ms·
Limiting the impact of humans is a means, not an end.
by csallen 7y ago
Limiting the impact of humans is a means, not an end.
- refurb 7y agoSo what’s the end goal? Save every possible species despite them not being viable?
- csallen 7y agoSure something like that, although I'd say it's to save every species that's practical to save rather than merely possible. Whether or not they're "viable" seems irrelevant.
- refurb 7y agoWhy? What’s the rationale? If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”?
- csallen 7y agoI don't think it's purely rational. It's probably the case that loss aversion[0] or some combination of psychological phenomena play a huge role. But I suppose the rational component is: If it's practical to save a species, and that species may provide some useful knowledge or inspiration in the future, why not save it? > If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”? I get what you're saying, but you have to draw the line somewhere. For example, if more money is better, why not work 3 jobs? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion