When a species disappears, it's gone from the universe forever. A less diverse planet is a less interesting planet.

Fair enough. But if a population is already down to some super small concentration in a specific area, it's not exactly contributing to diversity, more like sustaining it. At the point where a species is no longer having an impact on the ecosystem, i think It's losing out on contributing to diversity. I guess I dont see the difference between keeping the last few white tigers in a zoo or letting them roam free, seeing as they're doing about as much for diversity or human interest either way.

If the species is already present in an ecosystem, as they would be pre-extinction, it's safe to say they have a niche. I don't think any endangered species are also recent and invasive implants.

If they're dwindling down to an insignificant number, either the animal cant cope anymore or it's niche isn't working out too good. Going back to Darwinism. And "recent" is a very relative term when talking about the existence of a species; lots of the animals around on earth are fairly recent, for want of a better word, additions to the world. It makes sense to me that not all of them are going to make it to the next stage, whatever that is.

I disagree. I recognize that we are animals but I also recognize we have capabilities and awareness that are unique to us, and with that, comes a greater degree of both control and responsibility.

Human ego? The notion that because we can control something, for better or worse, we should? We have a responsibility to do so?

It's interesting you say I have the notion that humans are not animals, and in the next breath deliberately separate our actions from 'natural' actions.

I was giving an example of the kind of mentality and rational people exert who think that humans are apart from nature, not a part of nature.

Beavers are not very smart. They don't know what they are doing. This is like an adult having a public temper tantrum and saying it's okay because they saw a toddler do the same thing.

Human beings aren't exactly a shining example of intelligence and competence. And it's clear that we often dont have any clue what we're doing. I thought we already established that predicting the impact of your actions on an ecosystem is a haphazard art.

What is 'naturally'? Again it seems like you're drawing distinctions between human actions and natural actions. Why do 'natural' actions seem to automatically mean doing nothing to preserve another species? Why isn't it a natural action for humans to use their intelligence and planning abilities to reinforce or protect an ecosystem that's in danger? If that's not a natural action, what kind of action is it?

It seems natural for some members of our species to concern themselves with the wellbeing of others, for selfish, humanitarian, guilt-laden, ideological, or OCD reasons. The perimeters of the debate were loosely laid out, but I assumed that us all doing more to save endangered species would result in legislation and taxes and such, all against me and all for a cause I dont personally have any interest in provoking. So I'm against it, but it's only natural for some among us to take it upon themselves to be very concerrned for other animals and do something about it. Im not against that.

I think humans often confuse "saving the planet" or "stabiliziing the ecosystem" with self-preservation. Everyone is so concerned about global warming and the impact of it, when in reality life will very much continue on earth, global warming or no; it's a human concern, a human problem, aimed at extending our stay on earth as long as humanly possible. If the dinosaurs were around today, they wouldn't be able to breath our air or eat our food; ecosystems change immeasurably over time, along with the rise and fall of species, and I think we concern ourselves with maintaining the status quo because we think it will enable us to live here longer, not because we're genuinely concerned about the ecosystem.

While I can't really argue against this because it's just the way you've organized your priorities, it seems pessimistic, short-sighed, and selfish.

I have no problem being called a pessimist, we've already determined that actions that are aimed at saving us have just as much chance of coming back around and nailing us the in the nuts, so I dont think it's short-sighted, and at least I'm okay with and willing to admit my selfishness in that regard. I spent the last couple years without media, and a goodly portion of that far from civilization and surrounded by wilderness. I'm very appreciative of nature and animals in it, but I also know them to be very hard, unforgiving, and without compassion.

To summarize, I'm not against those of us who concern themselves with the wellbeing and continued existence of a species, I dont think we should do anything to stop those people. I just don't think action to save the animals should be in any way mandated, in short, because of Darwinism and our inability to predict the future.