[SergZHy67]

'Biodiversity' means the variety of bacteria, plants, and animals that live on our planet. This includes the unique behavioural patterns and activities of each species.

Biodiversity is an ecological concept discussed in many scientific circles. Many debates about biodiversity will ultimately boil down to how important this diversity is, either for its own sake, or for some specific human benefits.

International agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) aim to protect biodiversity.

And now the question comes to mind: WHY?


Pros for Conserving Biodiversity:

- The species Homo sapiens is unprecedented and unique among all life on earth. Human sentience and intelligence far surpass those of other creatures. These gifts have allowed human beings to populate the earth, construct industry, and affect the environment in a way that no other species can. This great power comes with great responsibility, and we should avoid abusing the earth, lest we cause irreparable damage - damage like the extinction of species and the consequent reduction in biodiversity cause by deforestation, over-fishing, hunting, the illegal trade in ivory and other species etc.

- Protecting endangered species is an extension of our existing system of ethics. Just as modern civilisation protects its weaker and less able members, so humanity should safeguard the welfare of other less privileged species. Animals are sentient creatures whose welfare we should protect (even if they may not have the same full 'rights' that we accord to human beings).

- The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used Nature as a starting point. Antibiotics were first discovered through the study of fungi, and many anticancer drugs are derived from the bark of exotic Amazon trees. Every time a species becomes extinct, scientists forever lose an opportunity to make a new discovery.

- As occupants of this planet, we must have respect for other life forms, especially since life on Earth may be the only life in the universe. We can show this respect by taking every effort we can to prevent the extinction of existing species, thereby preserving biodiversity.

- Biodiversity is a global problem and demands a global solution. The developed world should apply pressure on the developing world to adopt more environmentally friendly policies.

***

Cons Against Biodiversity:

- No species on earth would put the interest of another species above its own, so why should human beings be any different? Furthermore, since the very beginnings of life, Nature has operated by the Darwinian principle of "survival of the fittest". Life forms that cannot keep up with the newest species on the block will always risk extinction, unless they adapt to the new challenge. Man has no obligation to save the weaker species; if they cannot match our pace, they deserve to die out and be supplanted by others.

- Modern science has advanced to the point where inspiration from Nature is no longer required. Today, medicines derived from natural products are in the minority. In any case, the upcoming era of genetic engineering could possibly allow mankind to rid himself of disease without resorting to medicines.

- Even if this respect was justified, its expression comes at a significant cost. Biodiversity policies are financially costly and spend taxpayers' money that could be better used on healthcare and social services. It does not make sense for us to concentrate on other species when humanity has not yet sorted its own welfare out.

- Environmental protection and the protection of biodiversity are very much a luxury of developed nations. Many of these policies are beyond the financial means of developing nations, and implementing them would stunt their economic growth and disenfranchise the population. It is hypocritical for the West to criticise the lack of environmental protection in the developing, considering that the West got to its current position through an industrial revolution that paid no heed to biodiversity and other such concerns.

***

This House does not believe in biodiversity
This House fears the way of the dodo :P

Now:

What Do YOU think?

[baritkello]

As an Environmental Sciences Student, I am deeply for preserving biodiversity. The natural environment should be our number one priority, considering it is the impacts from out actions that are affecting the natural cycle in a negative fashion.

[lisualsethelp]

Whatever is in the best interests of humanity as a species should always be top priority.

[SergZHy67]

So you, believing that the Natural Enviroment should be # one priority, consider it more important that our own welfare?

I don't think we should exterminate the things, but why should we go out of our way to help them if they don't help us?
I suppose you could say that one "useless" species' death could trigger the extermination of another and so forth, causing mass extinction, but that doesnt seem to be happening if we leave them alone...

Can you name one Endangered Species that would hurt Human Society if it was exterminated completely?

[Tnzxovoz]

tl;dr.

[baritkello]

So you, believing that the Natural Enviroment should be # one priority, consider it more important that our own welfare?

I don't think we should exterminate the things, but why should we go out of our way to help them if they don't help us?
I suppose you could say that one "useless" species' death could trigger the extermination of another and so forth, causing mass extinction, but that doesnt seem to be happening if we leave them alone...

Can you name one Endangered Species that would hurt Human Society if it was exterminated completely?

Its called the Precautionary Principle, where we shouldn't mess with something if we don't understand it. If something becomes extinct, what are the chances that a relationship that we were unaware of then ceases to exist, and then that species suffers greatly and may become extint or endangered.
Don't help them because they don't help us? What makes you think we deserve that stance? These organisms were here far before any of us, so by all rights they should be of importance. Also, seeing as a race we are of higher intelligance, why not use that to the environments cause and help it? Whats it to you?

Ones species? Easy. Chicken. Beef. Sheep. Wheat ect. We need to be aware of what happens in the environment to know what is out there. A new disease may have broken out in the wild wheat or something, and we can then use that for experiments to safeguard our own.
If we continue a mutual relationship with the environment, nothing should happen. We just develop a bigger understanding of our surrounding area, and thus improve that relationship.

[xiaoselangone]

tl;dr

also, moar yu gi oh please and ty.

[Enfonebew]

tl;dr

also, moar yu gi oh please and ty.

you know that this is the OFF-TOPIC section of the forums right?

interesting man

a nice read

[reachmanxx]

- No species on earth would put the interest of another species above its own, so why should human beings be any different? Furthermore, since the very beginnings of life, Nature has operated by the Darwinian principle of "survival of the fittest". Life forms that cannot keep up with the newest species on the block will always risk extinction, unless they adapt to the new challenge. Man has no obligation to save the weaker species; if they cannot match our pace, they deserve to die out and be supplanted by others.

It is not our pace that other species should follow, it should be nature's pace. Our pace is too fast for nature, and both other species and nature itself are dying out. And when nature dies out, humans die out.

- Modern science has advanced to the point where inspiration from Nature is no longer required. Today, medicines derived from natural products are in the minority. In any case, the upcoming era of genetic engineering could possibly allow mankind to rid himself of disease without resorting to medicines.

No matter how modern or advanced science is, humans can never hope to survive after severing its ties with nature. Any scientific breakthru is either is either the discovery of a new substance or a new use for an already discovered, and maybe implemented, substance. These are either produced by nature or artificially made by a mixture of substances nature has produced. Whatever way you look at it, humans are linked to nature.

- Even if this respect was justified, its expression comes at a significant cost. Biodiversity policies are financially costly and spend taxpayers' money that could be better used on healthcare and social services. It does not make sense for us to concentrate on other species when humanity has not yet sorted its own welfare out.

I don't believe that one should prioritise preserving biodiversity over the welfare of those who are less fortunate that us. They are both serious matters that deserve equal amounts of attention. Both are, after all, concerning the welfare of certain species.

So you, believing that the Natural Enviroment should be # one priority, consider it more important that our own welfare?

I don't think we should exterminate the things, but why should we go out of our way to help them if they don't help us?
I suppose you could say that one "useless" species' death could trigger the extermination of another and so forth, causing mass extinction, but that doesnt seem to be happening if we leave them alone...

Can you name one Endangered Species that would hurt Human Society if it was exterminated completely?

Yes, we should go out of our way to help species, esp those that are endangered cos they are in that state cos of us. Whether it was mowing down their habitats to make room for new apartments or just hunting them for the sake of it, we put them in that position, so we should take the responsibility to set them back on track.

In what way has nature not helped us? It provided us with trees for oxygen, water for drinking, animals for accomplishing tasks we cannot, the atmosphere to shield us and much more. Forget repaying nature for what it's done for us, we can't even stop ourselves from destroying it. It's like asking a blacksmith to forge a sword for us and not paying him, decapitating him instead with the very same sword he just made for us.

[SergZHy67]

i love the thinking going on with this thread :P

Biodiversity seems to be made of moral and survivalist standpoints.

I vote that we put the endangered animals on the food menu. Cows and Chickens flourish due to the fact that we use them to survive, and maybe the same can happen if we eat Tigers and Endangered Tree Frogs Too!

lol

But seriously:
I believe that upholding Biodiversity is necessary to continue the wellbeing of Human society. Disregarding it will pose similar consequences to that which occurred when we disregarded the effects of burning Fossil Fuels on our atmosphere for so many years after the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

[euylvaygdq]

As a bio major, I know a lot about all this bio diversity stuffs.
We (my environmental studies class) determined that biodiversity in the environment is important for 2 reasons.
One of which has been described in thread already.

1. The Precautionary Principal. As Bowser stated, we shouldn't allow for species to go extinct needlessly as we would not know the outcome of the dissapearance of the species. It may, as you claim, not be an important link in the chain. But maybe, it is. Maybe it's crucial to the survival of another species, and that species to another and so forth. Before we know it we wiped off an entire ecosystem from the planet. Better safe than sorry.

2.When I think of biodiversity I think more towards the evolution of different phenotypes through sexual reproduction, without said biodiversity, species would be doomed to be stuck in one gene pool. This would result in that species becoming in danger of wide spread disease or extiction via other means. Without the ability to adapt via Biodiversity evolution as we know it would be at a stand still:
Take bacteria for example. We developed a "cure" to kill of these bacteria : Penicillin. This worked wonderfully. Why? Because Bacteria are limited in their Biodiversity do to asexual reproduction. Now we have "Super Bacteria" that are immune to these cures due to sexual reproduction. Adaptation through biodiversity leads to survival of species.

[panholio]

If you can't eat it or wear it leave it alone.

[SergZHy67]

well a lot of people like endangered fur coats :P

[panholio]

hence they can be worn. open season

Id bmuch rather a baby seal get clubbed than to starve as an effect of global warming quit being selfish trying to protect cute animals and start realizing that until we fix the problem all we are doing is making them suffer.

[AK47rulz]

If you can't eat it or wear it leave it alone.

Here - here!

I liked this. Helped me get my fix for the night.

YJ

[baritkello]

hence they can be worn. open season

Id bmuch rather a baby seal get clubbed than to starve as an effect of global warming quit being selfish trying to protect cute animals and start realizing that until we fix the problem all we are doing is making them suffer.

We are making whom suffer? The animals?
And your solution to this is to kill them instead?

How about we protect them as well as we can, while trying to counter the effects of Global Warming through different energy sources with less toxic by-product.
Global Warming is a gradual process and thus in a hundred years we might actually see a decline in the temperature or an increase. Global Cooling might suddenly activate to counter the increase of temperature instead. We shouldn't wipe out a species because they might feel uncomfortable, as they might adapt quickly.

[SergZHy67]

Chances are they won't though, but no use wasting our resources exterminating a species :P

I'll think ill go find another topic for next week, but please, continue the show

[panholio]

We are making whom suffer? The animals?
And your solution to this is to kill them instead?

How about we protect them as well as we can, while trying to counter the effects of Global Warming through different energy sources with less toxic by-product.
Global Warming is a gradual process and thus in a hundred years we might actually see a decline in the temperature or an increase. Global Cooling might suddenly activate to counter the increase of temperature instead. We shouldn't wipe out a species because they might feel uncomfortable, as they might adapt quickly.

I also support euthanasia of terminal patients. Suffering is not an evil we have to abide.

[baritkello]

I also support euthanasia of terminal patients. Suffering is not an evil we have to abide.

I also support euthanasia. But within your previous statement you were killing upon the assumption that those animals are suffering from Global Warming, when there is little to no difference in temperature change.
I don't agree with the mindless destruction of animals because they "might" be suffering. Until we prove that they are, we shouldn't affect them. Also, everything dies eventually, and to prevent our suffering in the future should we kill every human now? What about in third world countries?

[SergZHy67]

We survive so we can improve our future

With that logic, humans shouldnt be euthanized and neither should animals.

If we euthanize animals and not humans, thats us saying we're superior to them.

That may be true...