Why should we save endangered species?

[Edible Cyanide]

i don't even c@r3 if humans go extinct

[Eternity]

Pandas are fucking the butthole of nature.

They only eat one fucking thing, and those plants have no nutrients. So they have to eat a metric fuck ton. They wont eat anything else besides the one type of leaf. If you take one into captivity and put a leaf on a plate for him, they wouldn't eat them either.

Woah man chill out, no one is saying MPGH members are deep. I also don't know if we should save or not save them, I don't have an opinion on them. I was just borrowing the words of the article. Actually the reason I even was looking at the article was because I was watching Planet II and the narrator was talking about destruction of habitat and whatnot. However that being said, after making this thread i did a little more reading and there are endangered species (alot actually) that if they were to go extinct it would effect humans in a way that is not good. However there are species that really make no impact to us if they went extinct, from big to small, there are species that go extinct and we don't even know about it till much latter (because they are not even discovered yet). Still really ignorant on the topic and only know bits and pieces, so take that into consideration. Just wanting to know what others opinion on the topic is, I don't want to have a "debate".

[JamesHardenMVP]

However that being said, after making this thread i did a little more reading and there are endangered species (alot actually) that if they were to go extinct it would effect humans in a way that is not good. However there are species that really make no impact to us if they went extinct, from big to small, there are species that go extinct and we don't even know about it till much latter (because they are not even discovered yet). Still really ignorant on the topic and only know bits and pieces, so take that into consideration. Just wanting to know what others opinion on the topic is, I don't want to have a "debate".

I appreciate you looking at both sides.

The argument of: Why should we care? is kind of valid. But its an easy answerable question. You should care because of the future implication and our general stupidity.

Biodiversity: Biodiversity is important, Everything is connected. Even the "useless" organisms are connected in a massive chain. You dont know what would happen if it just fucking got removed out of the world. Biodiversity is important.

Animals are useful to us: Besides animals being useful, we also get many examples out of them. Medicine was taken as an example from animals and used for humans. In other words just because an animal is not useful to us now, doesnt mean that with our limited scope, it couldnt be useful to us in the future. You never know. Maybe a massive virus breaks out and this one animal used to be immune to it! We let that endangered species die and we could have figured out a cure much quicker? Or killing them causes a massive ripple and fucks up an ecosystem, therefor affecting an animal that is actually useful.

The principle of it: By saying: "survival of the fittest", you are implying that we rely on evolution. Weve technically outgrown evolution. We fuck with nature all the time. We dont adhere to its principles as much. We can avoid volanic eruptions, survive hurricanes. Normal natural factors that would hurt us in some way or cause extinction have been destroyed by us. Vaccines are another example. Normally generations would die to smallpox before our bodies would automatically be immune to it, as only the fittest survive. But now we have vaccines and shit.

By implying "survival of the fittest" and saying one species is "useless", you are saying that anyone who is useless deserves to go.Homeless people? Useless, let them die. Dont even give them medicine! People working minimum wage jobs that robots can do? Useless. Let them die.

When you start being selective with what you determine as "useful" or "useless" you open up the floodgates for the future. Thats why people dont want to second amendment to go away! What happens if in the future the government wants to remove the freedom of speech? They can say, well this one was removed, so you can also remove this one.

What happens when you start banning hate speech? Then you open up the floodgates for future shit to be banned. Why am I talking about something completely different? Because it pertains to saying one thing is useless versus the other. What happens if we use the guise of "useless" to remove other species people dont like for society. There is a standard to be upheld. Every species should be treated the same way because of the respect we have for nature. Determining if something is "useless" or "useful" is not something very well defined and can be completely arbitrary. Unless 100% of people in this world wanted to get rid of a species, I would be opposed to doing it. Even if that species kills and eats humans regularly. Just because there should always be a standard.

[Danny]

We don't rely on endangered animals. I don't think a thousand pandas are effecting the ecosystem.

NOT THE PANDAS

- - - Updated - - -

Just wanting to know what others opinion on the topic is, I don't want to have a "debate".

Topics like these will always lead to a debate in the replies.

[Eternity]

I appreciate you looking at both sides.

The argument of: Why should we care? is kind of valid. But its an easy answerable question. You should care because of the future implication and our general stupidity.

Biodiversity: Biodiversity is important, Everything is connected. Even the "useless" organisms are connected in a massive chain. You dont know what would happen if it just fucking got removed out of the world. Biodiversity is important.

Animals are useful to us: Besides animals being useful, we also get many examples out of them. Medicine was taken as an example from animals and used for humans. In other words just because an animal is not useful to us now, doesnt mean that with our limited scope, it couldnt be useful to us in the future. You never know. Maybe a massive virus breaks out and this one animal used to be immune to it! We let that endangered species die and we could have figured out a cure much quicker? Or killing them causes a massive ripple and fucks up an ecosystem, therefor affecting an animal that is actually useful.

The principle of it: By saying: "survival of the fittest", you are implying that we rely on evolution. Weve technically outgrown evolution. We fuck with nature all the time. We dont adhere to its principles as much. We can avoid volanic eruptions, survive hurricanes. Normal natural factors that would hurt us in some way or cause extinction have been destroyed by us. Vaccines are another example. Normally generations would die to smallpox before our bodies would automatically be immune to it, as only the fittest survive. But now we have vaccines and shit.

By implying "survival of the fittest" and saying one species is "useless", you are saying that anyone who is useless deserves to go.Homeless people? Useless, let them die. Dont even give them medicine! People working minimum wage jobs that robots can do? Useless. Let them die.

When you start being selective with what you determine as "useful" or "useless" you open up the floodgates for the future. Thats why people dont want to second amendment to go away! What happens if in the future the government wants to remove the freedom of speech? They can say, well this one was removed, so you can also remove this one.

What happens when you start banning hate speech? Then you open up the floodgates for future shit to be banned. Why am I talking about something completely different? Because it pertains to saying one thing is useless versus the other. What happens if we use the guise of "useless" to remove other species people dont like for society. There is a standard to be upheld. Every species should be treated the same way because of the respect we have for nature. Determining if something is "useless" or "useful" is not something very well defined and can be completely arbitrary. Unless 100% of people in this world wanted to get rid of a species, I would be opposed to doing it. Even if that species kills and eats humans regularly. Just because there should always be a standard.

Yeah after reading a bit more into this the article I originally listed was complete garbage and the guy didn't know what he was talking about. After doing like ten minutes of research I found out that the question I asked is not simply answered. It has alot of complex scenarios that chanage probobaly on day to day based on what happens in the wilderness. So yeah I do apologize for original post but I did learn something from it. We won't have to worry about this issue or maybe not even our kids but the generation after that will definitely have to answer the question to this.

[Gaydow]

We don't rely on endangered animals. I don't think a thousand pandas are effecting the ecosystem.

I'm referring to it on a broader scale. The rate at which species are dying may seem slow to us but relative to Earth's timeline it's a blink of an eye. Species rely on other species. If a certain species ends up dying that is essential to a food-chain there'd be chaos which would result in a domino effect, eventually it does affect us. Good example of this is the coral-reefs, they're being bleached due to global warming. Coral-reefs play a huge part in the ecosystem in oceans. Watch some documentaries and it'll be all clear.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you explain the part when you said "Sooner or later it will hit the bees" How can extinct species hit bee population ? Bees need only plants and flowers to survive.

Like I said, everything is inter-connected within the food chain. There's a reason people use the phrase "the circle of life". Bees are being affected by pesticides used by humans, and they're dying off at a high rate. Bees pollinate something like 90% of the crops we humans use for food. Essentially, if bees go extinct you can expect starvation at a massive scale, unless we obviously find a way to artificially pollinate on a mass-level.

- - - Updated - - -

the bee movie was wrong bees r the worst pollinators

- - - Updated - - -



Bees are not the only pollinators and are an invasive species that kill other/more productive pollinators

u high asf, bees pollinate 90% of crops we use for food

[Kevin]

I'm referring to it on a broader scale. The rate at which species are dying may seem slow to us but relative to Earth's timeline it's a blink of an eye. Species rely on other species. If a certain species ends up dying that is essential to a food-chain there'd be chaos which would result in a domino effect, eventually it does affect us. Good example of this is the coral-reefs, they're being bleached due to global warming. Coral-reefs play a huge part in the ecosystem in oceans. Watch some documentaries and it'll be all clear.

- - - Updated - - -



Like I said, everything is inter-connected within the food chain. There's a reason people use the phrase "the circle of life". Bees are being affected by pesticides used by humans, and they're dying off at a high rate. Bees pollinate something like 90% of the crops we humans use for food. Essentially, if bees go extinct you can expect starvation at a massive scale, unless we obviously find a way to artificially pollinate on a mass-level.

- - - Updated - - -



u high asf, bees pollinate 90% of crops we use for food

THE BEE MOVIE IS A LIE

[Gaydow]

THE BEE MOVIE IS A LIE

stop watching fake news