3 ms·
Because unlike those previous species, we (as a species) were at best, at least partially responsible for their demise? That's the difference between the extinc
by yareally 12y ago
Because unlike those previous species, we (as a species) were at best, at least partially responsible for their demise? That's the difference between the extinction of the dinosaurs and the previously mentioned species. Reviving species such as the passenger pigeon is probably viewed by those in the project (aside from science reasons) as a way to make amends for our ancestors' shortcomings.
I mean just 100 years ago, people actually thought it was chic to place an entire stuffed bird on a hat and call it fashion (google search will pull up some creepy results I'd rather not find and link). Thankfully that fell out of style (but long after many species suffered great losses) and the Migatory Bird Act[1] was passed.
I tend to think that humanity has at least some obligation to be a decent caretaker of the planet and to care for those (human and other sentient beings) that are victims of circumstances outside of their control. That doesn't mean we should all turn into hunter-gatherers and live with leaves covering us, but we should at least be somewhat concerned with the consequences of our actions for future generations.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_19...
- wyager 12y agoYou still haven't explained why we should be "caretakers" for dying species. You argument now sounds like "we can, so we should".
- yareally 12y agoI don't really see a good reason why I should spend 30 or so minutes replying to your comments that show little interest in continuing the discussion. If you showed the interest of wanting to have a real dialogue, sure, but it's not fair to me to waste my time when you only seem to show minimal interest in continuing it. If those on the other side of the argument can't put forth posts that try to meet the guidelines for good discussion[1][2], why should I keep wasting my time? I enjoy good debate (even if I disagree with the other side), but this is all just me pouring out my limited time for someone to just spend a minimal amount of time on a subject/reply they don't seem to really care about. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoSo its 'caring' that is the litmus test? The issue here is, many of us don't care, while you do. Its not a question of bad faith, we just don't agree at all.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- vacri 12y agoConversely, you haven't explained why we shouldn't.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoIts expensive and pointless? It blocks development and progress? The animals don't care either so why should we? I could go on and on.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]