CreateDebate


Debate Info

158
164
Yes, stop saving them. No, continue saving them.
Debate Score:322
Arguments:228
Total Votes:379
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, stop saving them. (115)
 
 No, continue saving them. (114)

Debate Creator

NVYN(281) pic



Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?

I've changed 1 word in the debate title (**Evolutionists** to **people**) to hopefully discourage discussions about the meaning of words and help people focus on the topic. 

Basically extinction is as natural to existence as death is to life.  That being the case, shouldn't we just let endangered species die out instead of trying to save them?  I mean there's a good reason why they're endangered right?

Yes, stop saving them.

Side Score: 158
VS.

No, continue saving them.

Side Score: 164
6 points

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest - one fit creature doesn't save another in nature, so why should humans be any different?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

You are wrong!!!! Have you not thought of the future? Have you not thought of what would happen if one animal disappeared forever? What would happen to that ecosystem in that area? If a species went extinct right now our grand kids, great grand kids and so on will never see them only as pictures! How dare you say that?!?!?!?!?!? Every single living cell in the universe has the right to live? Do you not care about the ecosystems? The affect it could have on other animals that depended on it? How dare you say that? Every single animal, plant and insect is the fittest. You do not know the effects of a species being wiped out and the effects of the ecosystem it lived in. What if a species that was wiped out was a brand new discovered one? Scientists would not be able to study it because they are extinct because we made it like that! We humans are moving into habitats of other animals that are native to that land. In 1949 a species of snake from Australia was brought to Guam by a stupid idiot. Now 12 insect eating birds are wiped out in that area because of that kind of snake. 2 of them are in an area where they can be protected for now. Now Guam has a large population of spiders that the population of spiders were once under control by the insect eating birds. There are not enough insect eating birds there to control the population. See what happens when a species is wiped out? Other populations become greater or lesser. Nature made this and we humans are destroying our once beautiful world. We humans need to think about what animals we bring over to other countries and how we treat our earth. The dinosaurs went extinct because they couldn't adapt to the changes. Mother nature made them and then took them away. They survived for a very long time and now it's our turn but by the way we are destroying our world we won't last nowhere near as the dinosaurs. Mother Nature knows when to make a new species and when to end an older species but we humans are speeding up all the other animals extinction cycle. We don't know the future yet but I know it won't be pretty. Who knows about the dinosaurs? Maybe in a couple million years evolution and mother nature will work together and make something similar to the dinosaurs. The only unchanged dinosaur there is left is crocodiles. Their habits are not hanged even though their eniviroments, sizes and a few other factors are changed. The Cuban crocodile is very endangered in the wild. There aren't even 10,000 in the wild left. See what happens when we temper with the natural order of life?

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Forsini(1) Disputed
1 point

WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSUARS WE NEVER SAW THEM WOULDNT BE HERE IF THEY WERE STILL AROUND

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
Hadrian(477) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is the theory of natural selection. The "survival of the fittest" is done in the context of the environment.

Environmentalists should work to protect the habitat of all species by protecting their habitat from human destruction.

There is nothing natural about turning a marsh into a parking lot and expecting the turtles to evolve into speed bumps.

4 years ago | Side: Evolutionists protect endangered species
TERMINATOR(6717) Disputed
2 points

But some species can survive such a transition. The others should be left alone to live (and die) in peace.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
2 points

The assumption that anything humans do is not part of nature or unnatural is false. We are a part of the Earth and its environment as much as any other living creature and apparently we got here much the same way, too (through evolution). We weren't unnaturally thrown into the mix of things here on Earth were we? Termites build homes out of earth mounds and timber. We build homes from cement and bricks and steel. Our infrastructures are home to lots of rats and other living things, nothing unnatural about human activities at all.

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
PungSviti(548) Disputed
0 points

You are plain wrong

There are as many symbiotic relationships in nature, as there are species in nature. That is - Animals help each other out all the time (flower pollens get distributed by cows (who shit it in fertile ground), birds serve as warning signalers for other animals, some animals, both in sea and on land serve as cleaners for bigger animals, and in return get to eat what they clean - all sorts of mutual growth buisness goes on in nature.

Saying that "Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest" is as good a summary of the theory og Evolution as saying that Einsteins theory of relativity says "that everything is realtive"

These are oversimplifications and the reason your statement still keeps lurking in popular culture is because of a political theory called Social Darwinism, that simplified evolutionary theory to justify its actions (usually actions of shitting on people, in so many words). Social Darwinism is close to a dead theory but there are always radical groups who bring it up occasionally.

I point this out because alot of the arguments Creationists bring up time and time again are arguments against this simplified theory of evolution.

Like I said somwhere here before, evolitionary theory does not simply say that the "fittest survive" but rather the species most apt to deal with its current environment (that is "most fit" in that relative sense) is most likely to survive, but then environments change. So "fittest" has a context, and is not meant to be taken in a general sense. very small factors (like flu epidemics that rush up) can have a drastic effect on an animal that in all other respects (armour, speed, big jaws) has advantages. So unpredictable small changes have great consequences and randomly shake up the grounds we use to calculate "fittness"

As a side note it is important to realize that in many cases the greatest assets a species can have for survival is its symbiotic realtionship with diverse nature. (so that it doesnt put all its eggs in one basket, so to speak: like just depending on the size of ones jaws for example.)

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
4 points

Yumm! Vennison is sooooo tasty! mmmm! my mouth just waters when I think about it!

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Eventually we will master genetic engineering and bring them all back ;)

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

Sometimes that's not enough. Sometimes once something is gone it may be gone forever. We humans are destroying what we have. We abuse what we are given. Only selfish people have a blind eye to the dying world and I am not one of the selfish ones like you. I try to help the world by doing my job. I recycle, reuse, reduce and spread the word of the three r's. Apparently I have more brains that you do.

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.

You know, Moonpup, you're probably a good person but you haven't taken the time to fill out your profile, so I'll never know!

Either way, each and every living thing on this planet contains, within itself, the building blocks necessary for creating every other living thing. According to evolution, we are all related.

So all we have to do is create something that resembles what it once was. We don't have to be exact because it really doesn't matter. Many animals and plants have become extinct, even before humans walked the Earth, and it has not had a lasting negative effect.

And if you're a creationist..., well then..., God should be able to bring them all back.

And as far as your "dying" planet comment..., the planet has sustained multiple mass extinctions and every time, life came back. And even if this time life doesn't come back to this planet, the stuff of life can travel on meteors to other planets and seed them with life.

But regardless..., you just keep on doing your job ;)

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
3 points

Other species don't help save our people who are dying, why should we try and save theirs?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

We depend on other animals for things like fur, wool and food. What do mean what do other species do? That's how. We can't just kill off the endangered animals. It's the human race's fault so many animals are in endangered and dying off quickly. The human race is the one to cut down all the forests for stupid things. All those chopped down forests were once habitats and the green leaves on the trees in the forest were once used photosynthesis that makes 6 oxygen molecules and C6H12O6 (Glucose) we need air. Plants need the carbon we expell from our lungs. We work together to create more life and the cycle goes on and on and what am I rambling about?

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

Messing with nature's process of elimination will only slow things down. Leave it alone and let the species that are inferior die out to make room for those that are obviously meant to survive.

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
PungSviti(548) Disputed
4 points

You seem to assume that it is written in some higher law (I wonder where that idea came from) that some species should survive and others not.

and in talking about how saving endengered species can "slow things down" you also seem to assume that evolution is heading in a predefined direction to some sort of rapture (I wonder also where that idea came from).

The theory of evolution is not a scientific version of bible prophecy.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
Sulith(507) Disputed
3 points

That's why there are aids in Africa.

=]

------------------------------------

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
SilentSound(113) Disputed
2 points

Problem is that most of them aren't dying because of "nature's process" but rather Human intervention. They are dying not because they aren't great hunters, breed to slowly, etc. They are dying because men leveled their envirmoent, destroyed their food, or simply killed them for fur, oils, meat, etc.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

I agree with this but I do not agree wih that we should let endangered animals die. We do not know everything and we maybe shouldn't. We should think about the future and how we can save the world not kill it.

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
-1 points

They're dying because we're the more dominant species and we're more successful at survival than them, we're so good at surviving our population has to be controlled.

Sure, they're good hunters and whatever, but we're much better! So no, they're not dying out because they're not good at what they do, they're dying out because we're just better... Plants that are better at survival will outgrow and suffocate those that aren't as strong, killing them. Same with animals. The more dominant species will dominate! It's natural to destroy the environments of other species.

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Hadrian(477) Disputed
2 points

These species are not endangered because they are inferior. They are endangered because of human actions that destroy their environment.

You may as well argue that cockroaches are superior to humans because they will survive and thrive after an atomic blast that kills the entire human race.

Lets have that nuclear war let and the species that are inferior die out to make room for those that are obviously meant to survive!

4 years ago | Side: Evolutionists protect endangered species
NVYN(281) Disputed
2 points

Dude, I think you're a little bit dramatic, but I actually like that in this debate. Suppose we destroy ourselves with a global nuclear war. Here's something we don't know: What if a group of us develop the ability to adapt to this radioactive environment and have all kinds of new crazy abilities that the X-men have? So as a result, we don't destroy ourselves but we merely got rid of those who were obviously "weaker" (or haven't got the ability to adapt to the new environment). We just don't know for sure, do we?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

We humans are speeding up the elimination because we destroy animals habitats young grasshopper we are not slowing anything down. We abuse what we are given.

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

I think you have made a good point! take the dolphins on cape Cod, a group saved them from the beach..... they may now breed and have baby's who stranded on the beach as well?, maybe they should have let them die to persevere the rest of the Dolphins.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS/3120310

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I agree. By letting bad genes get passed on you jeopardize the entire species.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

Do you have to be so mean to an accident that was not their fault? All life in the universe is given chances to live and die. Just like the rising and the setting of the sun. Like the new moon and the full moon. They are given chances to bring and give life but we are speeding up many extinction cycles by building more cities and using more land for farming. Many people do not know the amazon forest is poor for farming. They have tried this many times but they never learned from their mistakes.

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Hadrian(477) Disputed
1 point

These dolphins are not necessarily defective. However, our actions in their environment are damaging and destructive.

We need to stop the testing and use of sonar by the Navy that:

1. disorients sea mammals enough that they beach themselves

2. damages the way they navigate --> beaching.

3. Causes major pain (earache anyone) --> beaching to escape the noise.

THE CANARY ISLANDS - A total of 21 whale strandings in 1985, 1988, and 1989 were linked to visible US Navy maneuvers. These were the only times that whales were reported to strand in the Canary Islands. (Nature, 1991) Award-winning French biologist Dr. Michael Andre, free from our government's influence, learned from necropsies while studying the decline in sperm whales in this area that two of the whales (who were involved in the increasing whale collisions with boats in the area) were deaf as suspected.

THE ATLANTIC COAST - In 1987, dolphins exposed to 235 decibels of sonar stranded and were found to suffer from tissue and lung explosion. (This information was allegedly found by Dr. Joe Geraci and buried in reports on file.) Since this revelation, there has been a great deal of resistance to obtaining autopsies that check for these types of problems, also predicted by the Marine Mammal Commission in 1997 (possibly based on Dr. Geraci's findings) to be a consequence of LFAS.

THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA NEAR GREECE - In 1996, twelve Cuvier's beaked whales documented to be exposed to NATO sonar at 150-160 decibels were found stranded. At the same time about 200 stranded dolphins were suspected of suffering from tissue explosion. (Nature, 1996) LFAS levels to be used by the U.S. are reported to be 180 decibels in areas near shore and could go considerably higher, once deployment is underway and this program is classified.

THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS - In 1998, three whale calves and one dolphin calf were found dead or abandoned during and immediately following sonar testing, even though in 15 years of research this phenomenon had never been observed. One of these was a distressed whale calf who breached 230 times and pectoral slapped 658 times in front of Dr. Marsha Green's research team in a four-hour period before the sun set on his distress. In addition, a pod of dolphins was observed by naturalists familiar with normal dolphin behavior huddling unusually close to the shore near the surface and vocalizing excessively while the sound was on.

CALIFORNIA- Since the open testing in California began in 1997, sonar exposed whales immediately began to strand in increased numbers. In addition, there was a report of uncharacteristically aggressive behavior which is known to be a symptom of LFAS exposure. More recently, The Malibu Times reported in January, 1999, that more than 150 gray whales were found dead due to starvation along their migratory route where testing took place in 1998. Starvation can be a result of deafness, but ears were not checked in these cetaceans, even though the cause of death has remained a mystery.

http://www.earthportals.com/beachedwhales.html

http://www.ilhawaii.net/~light/lfaindex.html

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
usps(359) Disputed
1 point

Thats awesome! but the Navy was no ware in sight! an the Dolphins and whales have been stranding on Cape Cod long before we Had a Navy! so to blame humans is irrational! http://www.deafwhale.com/stranded_whale/ theories.htm

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
2 points

If you personally want to go and save endangered speices go if you would like but do not let the gov with are tax dollars do it.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Elvira(3195) Disputed
1 point

So you're saying that institutions that accept responsobility for a country cannot be responsable for the fauna/flora of said country?

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

Heck YES! We should pour our efforts into saving humans instead of those tasty little critters.

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.

The strongest species survive its natural. And it might prevent the evolution of another species to take its place. SO if we saved every endangered species lots of other species might not evolve.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

You do releazie that evolvoution takes millions of years right? By then some species may have gone extinct because of us. That and your theory is not correct.

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

if we save the endangered, then what about the prey or predator of this animal?

if we start saving, then we will most likely continue, then, this endangered animal's population will soon increase. if there are to much of this animal, then killing this animal will be involved. Soon this animal will be endangered again and the cycle continues which is obviously no use.

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Lounisha2013(3) Disputed
1 point

But if this animal is a keystone species, then we have to do what it takes to build up this animals population. Because the balance of the ecosytem depends on it.

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

Humans are a species just like any other. The only rule in nature is that the fittest survive, we are the fittest, so why do we have to hold ourselves back? What's the difference from a lion killing a gazelle or us killing a gazelle?

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
7 points

Evolutionary theory does not suppose that species that survive are "better" in a general sense - it supposes it is better in a given environment (that environment includes the complex symbiosis between animals) If the environment changes (and it does all the time) then one species that might have been "the best" in the old environment might loose its position. If a nuclear war happened then cockroaches would theoretically be "better" apt to deal with the situation than us, fur example.

So in other words: the theory of evolution does not place inherent value onto species, its value is relative ( another concept the religious find hard to understand)

But to answer the question: "evolutionists" should in at least in some cases try to save endangered species, if only for the value of being then able to study its genetic code, and such. Some endangered species might have very special attributes that might be used for medicinal purposes, for example

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

Natural selection purely cares about the ability of a species to survive in a given environment. Those who are weaker than others will not be as successful in surviving and so may eventually find themselves on the endangered list. Rats are pretty awesome survivers, pandas on the other hand are pathetic animals that will probably not exist in the wild any more...

Perhaps we can keep them for research purposes, but I doubt that reason alone will justify a budget.

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
PungSviti(548) Disputed
1 point

In terms of trying to save all endangered species, I think we agree - such a mission Is so humongous that it is practically impossible.

And I do think that there is to much emphasis on saving the visually appealing animals - that is I think somewhat of the endengered species right groups do what they do for sentimental reasons and not scientific (not that there is anything wrong with being a little bit sentimental).

But we definetly gain from trying to save some endangered speices, therefore I say no to the question.

P.s. When you say "Those who are weaker than others will not be as successful in surviving" I do think "weaker" is a loaded term there. It could happen that a species that is in all respects "stronger" than some other species would go extinct, and not the weaker one - just because of environmental luck/bad luck. On average though, the better apt species is more likely to survive.

In other words, though some species goes extinct, doesnt mean that it was necisarilly a worse survivor in a general sense than other species that might survive for a million more years.

I think that people confuse the scientific theory of evolution and the politcial theory of social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism is a simplified version of evolution used by politicians (usually facists) to justify their actions. It is built on the idea that evolution is an agency that has a predetermined linear plan for all species (and in that respect quite similar to gods of many religions) and Social Darwinist look at their survival as a proof that they are "better" In a scarily general sense, and therfore are justified in their actions.

Their logic is profoundly circular and stupid (like religious logic as well)

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
4 points

Just some food for thought.

The whole point of this debate is centered around the ideology of genetic superiority. However, who is to say that these endangered species have a mechanism to prevent extinction? These endangered organisms have a method for survival that they have gained: humanity.

If we look at this from a more objective viewpoint, humankind is saving some endangered species from extinction. Now, why do we do this? The species have perked our interest in some category. These species have, one could say, evolved to be different, which causes humans to not wish their disappearance. Humans are saving the species for a reason, but this reason may seem hazy.

These species have managed to manipulate us indirectly to engage in a symbiotic relation with them: humans get what they want (beauty, a product, or knowledge) and the species gains the ability to survive.

In summation, these species are not genetically inferior. In fact, they have succeeded in manipulating the human species into keeping them alive.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

Ok, the Tasmanian tiger looks like an awesome creature, but it's extinct. Lots of other animals that are awesome to look at or study, but because they're not so easily adaptable, they've become extinct. Humans can try to save them, but if our population keeps expanding, natural habitats of certain animals will continue to disappear. Survival of the fittest is a heartless game, but nature or rather evolution doesn't cater for the heart... The human species could well be on our way to becoming a super mutant species with super intelligence and physical abilities that far exceed our current levels, if the theory of natural selection is correct. Why do we want to mess with nature?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
wforcier(96) Disputed
1 point

I guess I was a little unclear with what I meant when I said that. It is not that an awseome looking creature should survive; it is that our wish to save these creatures is a tool for their survival. It is not about catering for the heart; it is about logic. If humans want something, such as an endangered animal being saved, they will attempt to do it. We are not interfering with nature by saving it; we are submitting to nature by trying to better our own species through saving the endangered one.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
3 points

Evolutionists should subscribe to the theory that species that survive are genetically better than those that don't.

The term "evolution" refers to the fact that allele frequencies change within and across populations of biota as well as the explanatory model (theory) that accounts for how or why this occurs. It isn't, however, a social movement; there isn't an "evolutionism", and therefore no "evolutionists". There is also no such thing as "genetically better". That doesn't make any sense.

If so, shouldn't they just let endangered species die out? I mean there's a good reason why they're endangered right?

(:|) That biota evolve has little relevance to whether humans should or should not act to help sustain living populations.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
2 points

Evolution is a theory of how things become what they are from the "beginning".

The other theory is Creation.

People believing in Evolution are called Evolutionists.

When I say "genetically better" I mean "genetically better adapted to survival".

Why should we try to save those species that are obviously not meant to survive in the current environment?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Mahollinder(897) Disputed
4 points

Evolution is a theory of how things become what they are from the "beginning".

After the beginning, and not how things become what they are, it is specifically a theory that explains the observed biodiversity on the planet earth and the mechanisms that lead to it.

The other theory is Creation.

Creation doesn't have a theory. To this day it is an untested hypothesis (at best).

People believing in Evolution are called Evolutionists.

One does not believe in Evolution. You either accept it or reject it. "Evolutionist" is only a misnomer by ignorant people.

When I say "genetically better" I mean "genetically better adapted to survival".

I get what you mean. It's just nonsensical.

Why should we try to save those species that are obviously not meant to survive in the current environment?

"Meant to"and "not meant to" survive are absurd notions. Populations either survive or go extinct. And we do what we must because we can, and have an obligation to our own survival to ensure that ecological equilibrium is maintained as best as possible. For example, a species of frog disappears, dipterids and cucilidae, and all sorts of other nasty insects become disproportionately represented, causing problems for us that decrease our ability to survive. So, we have a practical obligation. Moreover, westerners have tended to outweigh our ecological budgets through urbanization programs that have created artificial punctuations and pressures. We also overhunt and exert our influence in ways unnatural to ecological balance. So, we also have a moral obligation because it is often our fault that these species are endangered, not nature's fault. So we are obliged to do something about it.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
iamdavidh(4844) Disputed
2 points

Creationists are so backwards.

I know I'm right, because I was raised hella-super religious to the tenth power.

If one is actually under the impression that some god created everything, and they are not simply spewing whatever corporate interest most recently hijacked their religion,

they would be even more into conservation than the "unwashed" Evolutionist.

I mean, your god loves and created all things. Shouldn't you be trying to keep them alive?

When did god become so bloodthirsty? Why wouldn't god want people to conserve? I can think of at least a couple places in the Bible where it specifically says to conserve things like grains back during Kind David's time. Why would your god encourage conservation on that scale, but be like "oh just kill all the (insert species) if I wanted them to live I would have made them smarter/faster/invisible.

It's just dumb NVYN. You cannot argue for killing from a religious perspective. It makes you a modern day Pharisee.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
3 points

Maybe, but conservationists shouldn't, because then they would be out of jobs :p

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
2 points

People who think it's "good" to let species go extinct because obviously if they do that just means evolution decided they were supposed to die off don't understand what evolution is. It's like saying we shouldn't interfere when we see someone falling off a cliff because gravity says things are "supposed" to fall.

Gravity just describes how/why things DO fall. It doesn't say it's good that they fall. And evolution just describes (among other things) how/why some species DO go extinct. It doesn't say it's good that they go extinct.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

Nature isn't about good or bad. Nature doesn't have moral values I'm afraid. It's simply the case of passing on genetic codes... we're currently the leader in the game. Good or bad isn't part of the plan at all.

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
gcomeau(535) Disputed
2 points

And evolution isn't about "should" or "shouldn't". So the answer to the debate question is rather clearly "no".

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
2 points

A huge part of why a lot of species are being saved is because humans have overhunted them, destroyed their habitats and homes, or polluted them to death. Evolutionists are trying to save these animals as a way to reverse the bad things we, as a species, did in the past.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

The strong hunts and destroy the habitats of the weak all the times in nature. It's natural. Humans are currently the strongest, that's why we're destroying the habitats of other species... We're proliferating and we need space!

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
MKIced(2300) Disputed
3 points

Our quest to control nature went overboard. The goal of evolution is to slowly change species and kill off a few here and there. We have killed off several species and have pushed many to the brink of extinction for nothing more than beauty. Many humans used to hunt elephants for their ivory tusks. Some still do hunt elephants for this reason alone! And as for loss of habitat, there is no need for us to cut down so much of the rainforest each year. It's just that a lot of people want cheap farmland. And what's the best way to do this? Burn down a few acres of the rainforest and, in the process, destroy the homes of thousands of different species.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
2 points

Those on the yes side presuppose so many inaccurate ideas about evolution as a whole it makes my head spin. And though there have been good arguments on this side, I would like to add something of the human species.

We evolve also.

As such, we've evolved to such a point that we understand that killing off all of a species affects us in some negative way.

And so to continue our rate of evolution, without even thinking about it in these terms, we have evolved in large part to want to make sure things that are part of the overall Eco-system survive.

Of course there are those, namely the other side, which are less evolved. Like an alligator or bear, they don't realize or don't believe that using all of the sources available until they are gone will lead to their own demise.

Luckily most people are smarter than that.

While saving cute pandas and penguins is great. Ultimately saving endangered species is saving ourselves. It is a product of our own evolution to even understand it is in our best interest.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
2 points

Sure we've evolved quite a lot. Sure we've got the ability to figure out "some" of the things about our environment. But we don't know everything yet. We might never know everything because there's just so much to know. For instance, how do you know we shouldn't continue to be as selfish and destructive to the environment as we've been so far? May be we should speed that up a little bit even? I mean we don't know how the human body will react to the new environment of carbon rich atmosphere. What about species that may be created to specifically adapt to this new environment of "pollution"?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
SMCdeBater(241) Disputed
0 points

"We don't know everything yet"

I don't understand, please explain how that statement relates, in any way, to the topic?

I mean, sure, we can be as selfish as we want, and pollute our world to death. We might as well make a headstart and start throwing trees into a furnace for the sake of "selfishness." The whole point of our side of this debate is that we as human beings, as a superior race, can make a difference, we just need to open our eyes and notice what is going on in the world. From there, we make a positive difference as best as we can. God created human beings with superior logic because they were destined to become a superior race? I agree whole-heartedly, so why aren't we making a difference more often? Why aren't we trying to preserve natural life without overpopulating it?

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

Environmentalists should continue to protect endangered species by protecting their habitat from destruction by human activity.

Evolution is the theory of natural selection. There is nothing natural about turning a marsh into a parking lot and expecting the turtles to evolve into speed bumps.

4 years ago | Side: Evolutionists protect endangered species

Although highly expensive for taxpayers, it is our responsibility as humans save endangered species, for we interfere in their habits with our own ambitions. So, when an endangered specie is gone, it is gone for a long time. In other words, it is never coming back.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

One species "interfere" in another species's ability to survive all the time in nature. It's natural. Ambition is natural. Greed is natural. Selfishness in general is natural. We can try to save them all I suppose, because it's also natural to do that. But I just don't think we'll be any good at trying to control nature like that...

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

save them it helps our everymont and would help get medacine all that ect..

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

what? i'm not sure what language you're using. .

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

Well, in many cases humans are the cause of the destruction of a species. Evolution loses all relevance when it comes to short range disasters and death. If we stop efforts to save a species it can have unpredictable results on the entire habitat; which my turn prove to be bad for that whole ecology. Biodiversity is a good thing, so let's keep it up by continuing to protect endangered species.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

Humans destroying other species is no different to other species destroying each other. That's how nature works. All species compete for resources and the stronger ones win.

.

Biodiversity is a good thing? Prove that. Why should we have a billion species when half a billion would do just fine?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

Of course you should continue you saving them. You want the species to live on.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

Really? Why? Can you successfully save them? How many can you save?

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

Ray Anderson spoke about how every scientific peer reviewed journal in the last 25-30 years stated that the biosphere is continually being shift to humans. While I don't think saving any and all animals is a good idea, we should give thought into how humans are very expensive to maintain in terms of ecological costs. While the biosphere is continually diminishing, it's only a matter of time when humans will perish due to the lack of food. First by the lack of variety, then the lack of amount. After which out of desperation, we'll start eating each other assuming that nothing changes. "In 50 years, if all the insects disappeared, life would cease. If all the humans disappeared, life would flourish"

I think the solution is to find ecological sustainability in agriculture. For instance, the metric of a good fish farm is in the number of fish predators. If the predators are plentiful, that means the fish are a good supply of food.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
2 points

Firstly, I think ecological sustainability is even more elusive than world peace. This is because:

- a) you have to know exactly how everything works together, as in how everything affects everything else. It's a mammoth of a task (excuse the pun).

- b) then, you try to intervene. A bigger mammoth of a task.

So, if we can't control ourselves and stop killing each other, there's no chance for ecological sustainability...

.

In 50 years, if all the insects disappeared, life would cease. If all the humans disappeared, life would flourish

This quote is useless because humans are not capable of destroying even 1 species of important insects, let alone all. If they all disappeared, it wouldn't be us that did it. They are much better at the survival game then we are.

The point of this quote is stupid because it's comparing the usefulness of one species with another. Being a part of the system, humans got here the same way as any other species: through Evolution. More specifically, we're a result of the process of Natural Selection. Humans are as natural as any other species here and nature is much larger than us. Stop thinking that we can control nature somehow.

4 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

I understand the fact of life that species do go extinct and appreciate the cycle. In the past I would have agreed with the latter because I just accepted it as that. But I can also agree with saving the few endangered species out there because it says on a whole that we humans can be compassionate creatures willing to give some species their second chances due to habitat changes and being shot down by poachers so often. The habitat out there isn't very fair and hasn't been fair ever since humans went Industrial, so I think there's a point in saving a few endangered species. At least just give them the chance since we can be merciful.

4 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

I agree but i would add i support Eco-mercenaires who kill poachers on the spot. Human life isn't sacrosanct

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

Stopping all efforts to save endangered species is stopping all efforts to save ourselves. We have put ourselves in a position where we can destroy our species, as well as life on Earth. Furthermore, as David Attenborough says, "Our planet, the Earth, is, as far as we know, unique in the universe; it contains life. Its continued survival now rests in our hands."

Our species is like a blind tree trimmer, cutting the complex tree that represents the history of life. All life is related, and connected by the branches of the tree. We are blind because we do not know whether we cut a twig, a branch, or even the entire network. Not only is it our responsibility to maintain life, it is quite obviously in our best interests. As much as we like to think that humans are the best, that the universe revolves around us, we are measly beings on the pale point of light that we call home. We are no better than any other species, and we should consider them just as we consider ourselves. Jane Goodall, one of the most animal experienced people in the world, says this about our anthropocentric views: "There is no sharp line dividing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom; it's a very wuzzie line and it's getting wuzzier all the time. We we animals doing things that we, in our arrogance, used to think were 'just human'". In order to save ourselves, we must save every insect, every bird, and every speck of life that is endangered by human activities.

3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

So you want to play god.

Saving every insect, every bird, every speck of life that is endangered by human activities? What a crazy idea. Truly. What makes you think we can?

Do wasps stop and say "wait a minute! we don't have to kill and eat bees, let's just feed on leaves instead"

3 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Elvira(3195) Disputed
1 point

We are talking about extinction of species here, not individual lives.

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
mohammedalam(5) Disputed
1 point

then it should be OK to kill some people to save others, human life is not sacrosanct

1 year ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
1 point

are you kidding me who would want to stop saving animals they cute and help our environment. Think if bees were not to exist whi would pollinate all the flowers. If there were no humans would there be this site. SO the weirdos on the other side have got to change their mind. Continue saving animals. they have rights too

3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
NVYN(281) Disputed
1 point

You can't kill all the bees... if humans don't exist, species will still go extinct, it's natural to go extinct when your species can no longer adapt to changes in the environment.

Animals have rights? Rights can only be taken, they cannot be given. Just as gifts can only be given, never taken.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, stop saving them.
Elvira(3195) Disputed
1 point

Main cause of extinction: habitat destruction, followed by hunting.

Caused by: humans

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

are you kidding me who would want to stop saving animals they cute and help our environment. Think if bees were not to exist whi would pollinate all the flowers. If there were no humans would there be this site. SO the weirdos on the other side have got to change their mind. Continue saving animals. they have rights too

3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

I think if the endangered species are ment to vanish they will, and nothing humans can do to stop that.....so it is very difficult to answer that question because the human kindness will answer with NO

Supporting Evidence: SEO Software (www.skyhighlinker.com)
3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

I actually agree with you here, people can find meaning in life as an individual if they make a meaning of it. Meaning for human existence as a whole? I don't think so however.

Supporting Evidence: buy phentermine online (www.online-phentermine.com)
3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

I think the solution is to find ecological sustainability in agriculture. For instance, the metric of a good fish farm is in the number of fish predators. If the predators are plentiful, that means the fish are a good supply of food.

Supporting Evidence: best diet pills (www.online-phentermine.com)
3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

We should help to save them because we have evolved beyond just protecting ourselves. To only worry about humans would be selfish and would be bad for humans in the end because life is all interconnected. We can't only think of survival of the fittest because if we did, we'd have to let handicaps and retards die and or suffer.

3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

We are the "lucky animals" to have evolved with judgement and the potential to cultivate our environments. We are basically the World's keepers. A lucky thing to have happened if those on the FOR side argue that its "survival of the fittest" otherwise we'd be on the other end of the stick and something else would discuss this..

But,

If we stop caring, we will all be doomed. The planet would die, and so would we..

Only the ignorant would do such a thing.

3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

Save whatever you can, but you cant save everything...

.......................................................................................................................

3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

we are causing an unnaturally rapid rate of extinction, because we have caused the damage, we have a moral responsibility to to mitigate the problem. There is also an anthropocentric argument insofar as biodiversity is one of the best ways to understand the health of an ecosystem. By preventing the extinction of as many species as we can, we maintain that the environment might be capable of rebounding once we have gotten our act together.

2 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

The world is like honeysuckle. One tendril chokes the other to reach for the light, believing they grow from seperate stems. When the sun shines, young leaves fight for its warmth. The struggle makes the bush strong, each branch seeking out the light and climbing ever higher. But when there is no sunlight, when the leaves begin to fall and the branches wither one by one, the stem must look to its roots for nourishment. The world is one like the moon and the sun. Like yin and yang. Push and pull. The world seems different to many but to the few who sees it as connected it is the same. Open your eyes and look around. Open your heart to nature and listen to the wind. Go into the woods and hear the words of the wise old trees. You will see.

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

OK anyone who is dumb enough to say that we should stop saving endangered species should be forbidden because think the human evolved from the monkey so "humans" are technically an animal so what happens when the human race starts going instinct would you want someone to help us if we were endangered. I think you would.

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

Animals and plants has provided us with the medications we need in order to survive. For example, the rosy preiwinkle has saved countless children with leukemia and other diseases. Most likely has saved someone in your family. They try their best to maintain the pest control that we created by killing all of the predators that eat the prey. Take for instance, the mosoquitofish and dragonflies. Both of them eat mosoquitoes, and is on the verge on being classified extinction because of us. If these insects would still be blossoming in our area, we wouldn't be having the mosoquito problem and the deadly diseases they carry everyday. The problem is that people don't take the time out to see why these animals are so valuable to us. They can help us uncover so many cures, remedies, and even herbs that can keep us alive to live another day, but we can't discover their mystery if they are extinct.

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

No, because mainly we are causing their extinction, through hunting or habitat destruction.

1 year ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

KILL THEM KILL THEM ALL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

349 days ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

Yes we should, as far more species are being killed off by humans, and reckless as we are, we won't regret it until it's too late.

349 days ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
0 points

are you kidding me who would want to stop saving animals they cute and help our environment. Think if bees were not to exist whi would pollinate all the flowers. If there were no humans would there be this site. SO the weirdos on the other side have got to change their mind. Continue saving animals. they have rights too

3 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.
1 point

yay, :) did you post on the debate about animal rights? you should if you havent, i think the debate is new but the positions are tight, but the issue seems pretty clear, animals should have rights.

2 years ago | Side: No, continue saving them.


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.