The Morality of Endangered Species Conservation

[Monarchist]

My friends, I am very disturbed by the recent obsession with preserving endangered species. Things die away, and species come and go as more powerful species expand and contract. This is not a very difficult thing to see; it is like water seeking its equilibrium between two connected and evenly-leveled water tanks! Despite this totally natural and reasonable process of elimination of things which cannot survive and the preservation of things which can survive, we have found another example of Endangered Species Conservation. It is inherently dangerous and morally corrupt, in my opinion, to preserve dumb animals with no sense of morality, at least in preference to human beings who are equally endangered by the presence of the endangered animal in question. That is the case in this most recent development.

In the United States of America, near the coast of the Chesapeake bay in Maryland, there is a disaster in the making. Large numbers of homes have been built on this rapidly crumbling shoreline, and the erosion threatens to collapse the entire neighbourhood into the Bay. This would be a fairly easy task of laying down foundations to ease the speed of erosion, but government busy-bodies are at their bureaucratic nonsense again! An endangered BEETLE that lives in this habitat-area requires a naturally-eroding cliff side from which to harvest its sustenance. If humans were to shore up the foundations of the cliff with masonry, the beetles would likely become extinct in that area.

Source 1: Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012402962.html

Source 2: Facts - http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7116.html

Source 3: Opinion - http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...etles-vs-home/

Source 4: Facts - http://www.ct.gov/DEP/cwp/view.asp?A=2723&Q=326064

Monday, January 25, 2010


One hundred feet above the Chesapeake Bay, atop Calvert County's scenic cliffs, a battle rages between man and a tiny insect, the Puritan tiger beetle.

The ground is literally falling out from beneath cliff-dwelling property owners in Lusby, and their push to stop the erosion has collided with government efforts to protect one of the few remaining habitats of the endangered species. The beetle, a predator that controls insect pests, needs naturally eroding, unvegetated cliff face to survive.

Residents of Chesapeake Ranch Estates, which has some prime real estate offering picturesque views of the bay, no longer visit the slim beaches beneath the cliffs because a 12-year-old girl was killed by a landslide in 1996. Last month, the property owners' association closed a portion of one of the subdivision's streets because the road is now just 25 feet from the cliff's edge. William Carmichael woke up the day after Thanksgiving to find that 12 feet of his property had rolled down the cliff face, taking his hot tub with it.

(More in the source)

So, how do "animal-human equality" people answer this potential disaster of human life? Must we preserve an ugly little Puritan Tiger Beetle colony to feel better about ourselves? Is human life so worthless that we must live in deference to a flipping INSECT?

[Helm]

We're only preserving many of these animals because they have a value of interest to us and for future generations. I think it's a shame we had to wipe out the Tasmanian Tiger for instance, I would have liked to see one.

[Monarchist]

We're only preserving many of these animals because they have a value of interest to us and for future generations. I think it's a shame we had to wipe out the Tasmanian Tiger for instance, I would have liked to see one.

I agree that the glory of many of God's creatures is something to be preserved, but not dirty little soil-eaters. These are beetles we're talking about, not majestic herds of wildebeasts. The Tasmanian Tiger can at least be kept in a zoo and bred carefully, but the same crowd which wants rights for beetles, and which wants to give dogs the ability to sue humans, would try to "free" the tigers too. I'm speaking, here, to those people.

[The Fishman]

I agree that the glory of many of God's creatures is something to be preserved, but not dirty little soil-eaters.

So you think God's creation must only be protected if it looks pretty?! And you people call yourselves believers...

It is inherently dangerous and morally corrupt, in my opinion, to preserve dumb animals with no sense of morality, at least in preference to human beings who are equally endangered by the presence of the endangered animal in question. That is the case in this most recent development.

There is no serious conservation effort that actually endangers human life or the survival of our species. And 'dumb animals' didn't cause the Holocaust, invent nuclear weapons or wipe out entire species just so they could look nice.

The disgusting Abrahamic belief in man's Heavenly dominion over the Earth is the last thing we need in today's modern world of diminishing resources, startling discoveries about animal intelligence and climate change.

We cannot keep taking and taking as if God, Allah or 'Mother Nature' will just keep replenishing everything.

[Nikos]

I think it's pretty unacceptable that the rights of these people are being trumped by an insect, but such is life in 2010.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The difference shouldn't need explaining. This is not slow, natural extinction. This is not mass-extinction caused by sudden geological change. This is mass extinction caused by human expansion and every single plant and animal species lost will never be documented fully by science and that includes all medicines that could have possibly been derived from them.

Monarchist, don't they teach you what the food chain is at school?

[Monarchist]

The difference shouldn't need explaining. This is not slow, natural extinction. This is not mass-extinction caused by sudden geological change. This is mass extinction caused by human expansion and every single plant and animal species lost will never be documented fully by science and that includes all medicines that could have possibly been derived from them.

Monarchist, don't they teach you what the food chain is at school?

I appreciate the condescension, but who cares what causes it? I didn't mention the cause at all, and I acknowledge that it's human expansion. I want human beings to expand, and I don't care if a bunch of useless beetles who erode our living space are endangered. We could very easily pick them up from that habitat and move them, for now, to an area of barren cliff that we are not currently living on. Also, that beetle population arrived on the cliff side after the human settlement was built, so if you want to be so very Species-Equivalent with me, we deserve it 'cos we were there first. We can very easily kill them and use their D.N.A. for medicinal experiments, because they're stupid beetles, literally.

The food chain has even more proof within it that we should eliminate these pests. We are at the top, and they the bottom - we can do what we want to the vile creatures.

The thing is, even the smallest part of a given ecosystem is a necessary cog in the natural machinery. A lot of species are going, and have gone, extinct primarily due to our negligence and mismanagement of the biosphere. We have a duty, as stewards, to protect and maintain the existing ecology and make up for our past mistakes.

Now, I'm a bit iffy in this particular example, though I suppose one can justify protecting them due to their niche. But on the thread's title subject, the morality of conservation in general, I stand firmly in the camp of it being the ethically proper thing to do.

We can change the natural machinery, if by small leaps and bounds, to better suit our species. If you consider that to be genocide, then I declare myself genocidal against beetles. It's all so ludicrous, my friend. If this were 1955 and a radio commentator were to mention the plight of endangered-to-the-point-of-near-extinction Puritan Tiger Beetles, his show would be canceled and he would be sent to compulsory psychiatric care. The fact that we give any thought to these amoral, insignificant little things shows how little we now care for the only species that matters, morally speaking.

I am disgusted by the idea that we must make the beetles comfortable for their sake, as if they appreciated it!

So you think God's creation must only be protected if it looks pretty?! And you people call yourselves believers...

There is no serious conservation effort that actually endangers human life or the survival of our species. And 'dumb animals' didn't cause the Holocaust, invent nuclear weapons or wipe out entire species just so they could look nice.

The disgusting Abrahamic belief in man's Heavenly dominion over the Earth is the last thing we need in today's modern world of diminishing resources, startling discoveries about animal intelligence and climate change.

We cannot keep taking and taking as if God, Allah or 'Mother Nature' will just keep replenishing everything.

I have never said that God will simply replenish things for us. The beetle has nothing to do with our foodstuffs. It sits on these particular types of cliff sides and erodes the soil more quickly than does the sea. As far as most can tell, they are merely a nuisance where they are now. If you're so morally relativistic that we can't kill the precious, disease-carrying insects, let's at least move them to a more barren cliff.

Your Holocaust point is not taken, because I despise it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The food chain has even more proof within it that we should eliminate these pests. We are at the top, and they the bottom - we can do what we want to the vile creatures.

Tell me you're being sarcastic.

[Monarchist]

Tell me you're being sarcastic.

Why should you assume that I am being sarcastic? I believe in God, and thus I believe in the supremacy of man. It's tough.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Why should you assume that I am being sarcastic? I believe in God, and thus I believe in the supremacy of man. It's tough.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

So what happens if you wipe out something on the lowest rung on the food chain, Monarchist?

[MaximiIian]

The thing is, even the smallest part of a given ecosystem is a necessary cog in the natural machinery. A lot of species are going, and have gone, extinct primarily due to our negligence and mismanagement of the biosphere. We have a duty, as stewards, to protect and maintain the existing ecology and make up for our past mistakes.

Now, I'm a bit iffy in this particular example, though I suppose one can justify protecting them due to their niche. But on the thread's title subject, the morality of conservation in general, I stand firmly in the camp of it being the ethically proper thing to do.

[Prodigal]

Humanity.

The world was created for us. We should use it for us.

[Monarchist]

Humanity.

The world was created for us. We should use it for us.

Oh, you silly religious fanatic! What a zealot you are. Don't you know that the animals are our friends, and they have exactly the same moral capacity as we do? We should be giving them free trials at court for all the vile slaughters we have perpetrated against them!

Wait! I think someone's slipped a sort of drug into my water.

[GuineaPig]

I don't see how that the current rate of species extinction being close to the rate at the K/T extinction can be spun as anything other than disastrous. It's not natural; it's human-driven, and we can't ignore it.

[The Fishman]

I have never said that God will simply replenish things for us. The beetle has nothing to do with our foodstuffs. It sits on these particular types of cliff sides and erodes the soil more quickly than does the sea. As far as most can tell, they are merely a nuisance where they are now. If you're so morally relativistic that we can't kill the precious, disease-carrying insects, let's at least move them to a more barren cliff.

Your Holocaust point is not taken, because I despise it.

So what if the beetle has nothing to do with our foodstuffs. Just because something annoys us or is not useful to us doesn't mean we can do what we want with it. That's called being a selfish megalomanic.

I have never said that God will simply replenish things for us.

No, but Christians used to and Muslims still do.

The world was created for us. We should use it for us.

Another example of how religiously-inspired stupidty is ruining our world. Ideas like this are far, far more dangerous than the Taliban ever were.

[Monarchist]

So what if the beetle has nothing to do with our foodstuffs. Just because something annoys us or is not useful to us doesn't mean we can do what we want with it. That's called being a selfish megalomanic.

It doesn't just "annoy" us or lack usefulness; it actively causes the loss of life, property, and liberty. Life is lost, obviously, by the faster erosion of cliffs that we had inhabited for many years prior to this. Property is lost, again because of the erosion. Liberty is lost because these affecting beetles capture the minds of regulation-crazed liberals who want to restrict human freedom as much as possible. Everything must be subsumed into the government's all-reaching hand and all-seeing eye, right? We must protect the innocent aminals; save the aminals, mummy, because they are precious too!

Let it be known that I would unhesitatingly press a button which lowered fifty tons of brick on to 50 rabbits than let a human being die, if I could prevent it.

Another example of how religiously-inspired stupidty is ruining our world. Ideas like this are far, far more dangerous than the Taliban ever were.

What a horrible thing to say. How on Earth is a belief that men are above the animals worse than planning to - and carrying out the action of - slam hijacked planes into buildings?

[The Fishman]

It doesn't just "annoy" us or lack usefulness; it actively causes the loss of life, property, and liberty. Life is lost, obviously, by the faster erosion of cliffs that we had inhabited for many years prior to this. Property is lost, again because of the erosion. Liberty is lost because these affecting beetles capture the minds of regulation-crazed liberals who want to restrict human freedom as much as possible. Everything must be subsumed into the government's all-reaching hand and all-seeing eye, right? We must protect the innocent aminals; save the aminals, mummy, because they are precious too!

-Life is not lost, few people die because of erosion. Eroding cliffs are usually evacuated before they actually become dangerous.

-Property is lost, but an entire species is worth more than human property.

-Liberty is lost, but all sensible laws cause liberty to be lost. Laws restrict liberty so that a greater amount of liberty can be saved elsewhere. In this case the beetle's right to exist is being preserved.

I would admit that this case itself is quite an extreme situation, but I wouldn't use it to generalise Conservationism as a whole. And I would agree that we do have the right to destroy insects that spread disease and ruin crops, which is self-defense.

Let it be known that I would unhesitatingly press a button which lowered fifty tons of brick on to 50 rabbits than let a human being die, if I could prevent it.

I would go for the opposite. Obviously it would be a really tough choice, and I might not actually end up doing this in practice, but logically I think the suffering of fifty is worse than the suffering of one. Animals have minds too, and can feel pain and experience emotions as well (to varing degrees).

What a horrible thing to say. How on Earth is a belief that men are above the animals worse than planning to - and carrying out the action of - slam hijacked planes into buildings?

Believing in our superiority leads to exploitation, and exploitation leads to poverty, and poverty leads to chaos. The Taliban may blow up a few buildings, but unrestrained growth destroys whole civilisations. Easter Island is one example of how unrestrained exploitation within a closed ecosystem leads to destruction on a grand scale.

[MaximiIian]

The world was created for us. We should use it for us.

What the hell are you talking about? The world existed for about three billion years before we came around. There's been life on it before us, and there will be life on it after us.

It doesn't just "annoy" us or lack usefulness; it actively causes the loss of life, property, and liberty.

A beetle. Yeah...

What a horrible thing to say. How on Earth is a belief that men are above the animals worse than planning to - and carrying out the action of - slam hijacked planes into buildings?

Because as long as we go about destroying the environment out of arrogance and negligence, we will not have a sustainable environment. Even if you completely ignore and discard the inherent value of all life (which you so callously have), you still have to contend with the fact that destroying our environment destroys us.

[Kjertesvein]

Well, I don't agree with you, because I don't see the reason to preserve any animal what-so-ever. Ugly or cute. Puppy or middle aged. I think it's selfish. However, I do admire those fight for conserving - fighting a constant uphill battle.

[Monarchist]

I'm not advocating wiping out the bottom of the food chain, but this particular set of beetles. Even if the entire Puritan Tiger Beetle species was wiped out, do you really think that whole area of the food chain and our ecological habitat would remain static and empty forever? You believe in evolution, so you must admit that you know the P.T. Beetle would be replaced by some other species, one less prone to being killed by humans. We must let natural processes play themselves out; endangered species conservation is emotionalism in the highest, and its ideal denies the fact that our Universe changes constantly. The beetle, once gone, will be replaced in its habitat by something else.

The strongest ones always win out, and these beetles are not the strongest in this situation. Human beings will adapt if we do manage to catastrophically wipe out this section of the food chain. You're looking at this from too cynical a perspective, I think.