General Question

lala123's avatar

What are the reasons to not protect some species?

Asked by lala123 (13 points ) October 20th, 2011

lala

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

13 Answers

flo's avatar

I think the endangered ones are protected not the unendangered.

JLeslie's avatar

It is probably natural for species to come and go. I assume we try to save species when man’s interference has unnaturally affected their numbers.

njnyjobs's avatar

Welcome to Fluther

Blackberry's avatar

There is no reason. But there are reasons to protect some (see @JLeslie).

Afos22's avatar

It’s called natural selection and evolution. Who are we to change it?

Mantralantis's avatar

Um, let me think…

Because some are dangerous…to try and protect?

blueiiznh's avatar

To elaborate on what @Afos22, when we think about protecting species, we are doing it in terms of what humans are doing that are impacting that species.
So while we do all we can because human progress is getting the way of a species, we really can’t possibly protect species from other species.
Sadly, humans start making decisions on what is more important (biased selfishly) than something else.
It’s complicated enough…..

Coloma's avatar

I think we should strive to protect every sentient beings right to life.
I don’t think man has the monopoly and to believe so is arrogant as hell.
Natural selection never took us 9 billion and something humans into account, but it is now.

I spent about 10 minutes playing with a jumping spider on the fence at my mechanics today while getting a minor repair. I had such a good time just in-joying this little creature whose whole universe is a fencepost in the weeds. I always inject myself into other creatures perspectives, more people should do so.

Hello! You are not the species that count.

Boogabooga1's avatar

I tend to agree with @Afos22 and @blueiiznh . We should take responsibility for protecting those species that we have had a negative upon but we should also be aware of natural selection and let it take place.

Pandas and Koala bears come to mind as bloody useless inadequately equipped for survival. (single food source and low sex drive, meh!)

Please don’t assume that I am some cold-hearted earth rapist, I’m really a tree hugger at heart but ‘if ya gotta go then you gotta go’.

LostInParadise's avatar

We should really pause and ask what kind of world we want to create. It is not just single species but entire ecosystems that are endangered. For example, by removing predators like wolves, bears and mountain lions, we have allowed species like deer and elks to wreak havoc on forests and meadows. For a good account of this, I highly recommend the book, Where the Wild Things Were Unlike some others, I do not think in terms of the rights of animals. In purely humans terms, by destroying nature we are making this planet a bleak world of housing developments, industrial complexes and shopping malls.

Bellatrix's avatar

I think where our activities are interfering with another species survival we should try to do something to counter our own influence. As @Coloma and @LostInParadise have suggested, we are not the only species on the planet and our impact can have catastrophic impact on other species.

Unfortunately, @lala123 is no longer with us! What a pity. Such a good question.

blueiiznh's avatar

@LostInParadise That is a Great Book!

A great read for children on this topic ironically is Dr Suess’s The Lorax

Hacksawhawk's avatar

Is it paradoxical to say that the human species shouldn’t be protected? After all, we are doing the ‘protecting’, more like destroying… But some people are trying, I guess that’s nice.
This could be like some sort of cynical form of the liar paradox.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther