CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
9
yes we should no we shouldnt
Debate Score:18
Arguments:16
Total Votes:18
Ended:05/18/12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes we should (9)
 
 no we shouldnt (6)

Debate Creator

tdhe(6) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Should we do more to protect and preserve endangered species

I need to know what other people think

yes we should

Side Score: 9
Winning Side!
VS.

no we shouldnt

Side Score: 9
1 point

I think we should because some of these animals might have cures to some diseases.

Side: yes we should
1 point

Well, here is my opinion.

1. If the human race did something to cause the endangered situation - yes do more

2. If the human race didn't interfere, but an ecosystem will significantly change and endanger our existence, then - yes do more

But...see my post on the other side.

Side: yes we should
1 point

Yes we should that is nature we are destroying how much longer until all we see are cement walls and windows.All those species were fine until we got greedy and wanted something we shouldnt have poachers talking to youthe more we protect those species the easyer life flows in the ecological system in the animal kingdom and in our lives too

Side: yes we should
1 point

The definition of "we" in this debate title is very very important.

Of course we should all be kind and considerate human beings and clean up after ourselves and be nice to all the animals and so on and so forth.

But the moment this becomes political(and I know that many of you automatically thought of this as a political type debate when you read the title) I would invite all of you to read the constitution.

The government or the law should have very little to do with endangered species or animals in general.

With all of that said extinction is part of nature. So we shouldn't act like it's the end of the world when it happens. So I might agree largely with those on the opposing side.

But should we be considerate by not speeding that process up? Sure. We as a people can and should choose to do so.

In conclusion let us prevent unnatural extinction. Without getting the government involved.

NOTE: I know you're probably thinking "you're the only one making it political" That may be true but I just really wanted to get that point out there.

Side: yes we should
1 point

If we can protect the endangered spieces the world will prosper as evalotion requires.

Side: yes we should

For me it's a combination of Darwinism and the fact that if an entire species is reduced to a dozen specimens and we're still here in a semi-functioning ecosystem, clearly those animals aren't required.

I think current efforts are enough, but if there had been animal rights advocates around the save the dodo, do you think our world would be better off today?

Side: no we shouldnt
zombee(1026) Disputed
1 point

if there had been animal rights advocates around the save the dodo, do you think our world would be better off today?

If they had been successful, we would be a more diverse world. I see that a huge aesthetic benefit if not a practical one, and it might also be practical to preserve ecosystem stability. Not all effects of extinction are immediately discernible or even predictable.

Why should the worth of a species come from whether or not they are required by humans?

Side: yes we should
1 point

For aesthetics we have zoos. The need to categorize, observe, and preserve animals can be expressed in that way. The last dozen fish of some species living in some pond far from civilization do nothing to brighten anyone's day aesthetically.

and it might also be practical to preserve ecosystem stability. Not all effects of extinction are immediately discernible or even predictable.

And it just might as well unbalance it. As you said its an unpredictable science, sometimes. I think it's the notion that humans aren't animals that has colored your beliefs. If beavers building a dam killed off the last few fish of some species, interfering to save the fish would be working to alter the "natural" course of the ecosystem. But if the fish were about to be killed off by pollution from some human factory upstream, we see it as our duty to help preserve "nature," save the fish, and right the ecosystem. Humans are part of the ecosystem, animals just like the fish and the beavers, and if our natural course of existence leads to the extinction of other animals, that's all natural. Seeing as how we often can't predict the course of nature, I think it's better to plod along our natural course and let the chips fall wherever they were going to naturally.

Why should the worth of a species come from whether or not they are required by humans?

Worth? I'm not sure how I'd determine the worth of an animal, but I would gauge the amount of human effort that should be put into saving a species based largely on self-preservation. Bees, for example, we should defend from ever going extinct. The last half dozen white spotted tigers (or whatever) roaming around in Asia somewhere? Where's the benefit in saving them? Like I said, if you think they're pretty snatch a few and put them in a zoo. If they're not contributing to our existence I don't see why we should contribute to theirs, at least, not more than we already are, anyways.

Side: no we shouldnt
1 point

If we didn't do anything to affect the endangered status, and the species is endangered, it probably would have been anyway. Then it is just an issue of preservation (like librarians). It is easy to do it with books and seed, but difficult to do it with animal life. Today we call them zoos. Tomorrow animal DNA repositories.

Side: no we shouldnt
panda87(15) Disputed
1 point

Yea but how long until animal DNA repositories huh?zoo's what animal in the zoo is happy they could never be wild or know what life is life in the wild thats like someone taking walking from a human something that they will desire or wish for forever

Side: yes we should
addltd(5142) Clarified
1 point

Yes, I meant today we solve part of the problem through zoos, but those aren't humane or long term. I think the future will be animal DNA harvesting where multiple specimens will have their DNA sampled and stored for future "reconstitution" via cloning or other means.

Side: yes we should
1 point

No, really, we are doing a fine job protecting endangered species. Though captivity can help them reproduce and live longer, they will never be the same as if they were out in the wild. National Parks are good in the way they still appeal to the wild. However, some shelters are not.

Side: no we shouldnt
1 point

Every species must be able to take care of themselves and if they can no longer do that they will go extinct. It has and must always be like that. Plus, keeping those species locked up in zoos is bad. They basically keep them imprisoned and unable to live their normal lives and thus they keep them unhappy and miserable. It is best to die now then suffer forever. Would you like to spend your whole life locked up in a cell controlled by "masters"? I doubt you would. Keeping alive species that would otherwise die is wrong.

Just because you feel bad for them does not make it right. Oh, and I feel bad for them too but I also know better.

What about you? Are you in control of yourself or are your emotions in control? Emotions are right sometimes, but not in this case.

Side: no we shouldnt