Endangered specied deserve extinction.
Yes, the can't cut it.
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No, we should intervene.
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
That's Darwinism. The weak don't survive in the long run because the strong and adaptable are the ones that nature favors. If they can find a way to come back from extinction on their own, then fine. Otherwise some other species will fill that niche they used to live in, or the environment has changed and there's no longer a spot for them. Side: Yes, the can't cut it.
Yes but evolution is really those that mate successfully survive and generally that is because they are stronger. There have always been natural extinctions of creatures but not at the rates we are seeing now. for instance all big cats but lions are endangered species. the red wolf is an endangered species as is the black footed ferret, yellow river dolphin, and many other animals as well as plants. a list of over 1500 endangered species is at http://www.earthsendangered.com/ Humans have caused these animals extinction with our fur trades, stealing of land and killing for sport. we are responsible for this trend. the animals try to survive but what can they do to stop humans? We don't let them equally share the land we live on and since they can't actually fight us(to any real extent) they are doomed to our mercy. Endangered species don't deserve extinction if humans are the cause of it. Side: No, we should intervene.
|
First off, I would like to very obviously let you know that we are the strongest and cleverest life forms on this Earth. "though you stand on the top of the ladder of life, you must not kick out that ladder from under your feet. You must not deny your relatives, the other animals. Their history is your history, and if you kick them to the bottom of the abyss, to the bottom of the abyss you go yourself. By them you stand or fall. What you repudiate in them you repudiate in yourself" -Jack London It is up to us to protect our brethren or no one else will. There still usually hope and time to preserve endangered species. Infact, many often die out because we kill their prey and hack down their habitat. Wouldn't that also give us another incentive to pick up the mess we made? Side: No, we should intervene.
If humanity was just another animal that acted in ways that other animals did, and humanity was not directly responsible for the endangerment of so many species I would say that the original statement was true. However, because humanity is an animal all to itself we have a responsibility to protect species that are endangered. Side: No, we should intervene.
Absolutely not- if they were dying off naturally and had failed to evolve into species that can live within their natural habitat then I agree that is how evolution has worked. However most of the endangered species are endangered due to human crowding and poaching- that is not an example of darwinism at all, it is simply the human selfishness and lack of respect for these animals. There is an eco system that is in place and has been for years and humans are destroying that everyday. Side: No, we should intervene.
1
point
mmm, I think that we should protect them out of self interest rather than anything altruist. Historically, we've always seemed to come to realize that a lot of what humans are doing has already been done by nature. For example, the new office buildings based on thermodynamic principles found in termite mounds are much more efficient than our blocks of air conditioned concrete. Also, a ot of new emerging technology is derived straight from nature, such as solar cells using photosynthesis rather than traditional photovoltaic cells. We still have much to learn from nature and if we burn her too soon, then we'll never achieve our own potential. Side: No, we should intervene.
Contrary to what some would claim, a new study shows saving species doesn't harm the world's poor. Side: Impact
|
