3 ms·
Sure 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" seem
by csallen 7y ago
Sure 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