I applaud any attempt to eradicate mosquitoes. they are vile and evil creatures. In fact, I saw a documentary the other night on TNT called “Skeeter” which documented Sherriff Charles Napier and his encounters with a particularly nasty breed of mosquito that grows to lengths approaching 12".
Joe Cool
Utilitarian argument:
I think it is actually to the benefit of human beings to have as much biological diversity in the life on this planet as possible. The different organisms contain a wealth of information (we’re in the information age) that can become valuable. To survive throught the thousands of years that it’s been in existence, a species must develop many capabilities to allow it to prosper in its ecological niche, and those capabilities might be harnessed by biologists for uses beneficial to mankind.
Look at pharmaceutical companies who try to discover new drugs from animal sources! One example being anti-coagulant drugs that could possibly be created using the enzymes found in leeches.
Moral argument: I personally don’t agree with the point of view “we’re smarter than animals are, and the earth is our dominion to rule as we please.” Chimpanzees and/or dolphins for example show some form of intelligence. Does the fact that they are not human mean we should be able to exterminate them at will? If so, what would that mean if a species more intelligent than humans arrived on earth (either through evolution, or from outer space, bear with me here.) Does that mean they would be justified in using humans as experimental animals or as a food source?
its not the fact that we are smarter its the fact that we can… dolphins cant wipe humans out but humans can wipe dolphins out 
and the arguement for developing medicins and such out of animals wont apply for long… once the human genetic code is completely mapped i assume that we will be able to eliminate disease(of course i could be wrong :))
So Asmodean are you saying that if a more intelligent species was on earth they would be justified in wiping humans out?
And just knowing the genetic code is not enough to cure a disease. Example: one form of muscular dystrophy (Duchenne’s) is caused by a defective gene on the 23rd (X) chromosome. Please tell me how to cure it, now that you know the genetic cause.
And if this species has developed the capabilities that will enable it to survive our attempts to wipe it out, then it will survive. If not, then it obviously wasn’t equipped for survival, and who are we to subvert natural selection by keeping alive a species that is unfit to survive?
Joe Cool
JoeCool, why is it natural if we try to wipe the specious out, but unnatural if we try to save it?
Obviously, I meant “species”, not whatever the hell “specious” is.
Ok, here’s my argument as clearly as I can state it without turning this into a religious debate.
One of two situations is true. Either
a) we are a product of random natural processes or
b)we are the product of creation by some intelligent being (God).
If a) is true, then we are simply a part of nature with no special moral obligations. As such, our actions are, by definition, natural consequences of existence and if we should find it necessary to eliminate an existing species in order to further or facilitate our own survival, then it is a natural extinction (since we are part of nature), and what happens happens. And as a consequence of that, the species will either survive or be eliminated. The law of natural selection displayed at its finest. For us to consciously violate our natural instinct to survive (i.e. protecting a species that is repulsive and dangerous to us) then we are violating “natural law” or whatever you call it. A badger has no regrets or moral quandry when it kills an animal intruding on its den. It is merely acting out of self-preservation.
If, on the other hand, b) is the case, then we do have a moral obligation to take into consideration whether it’s right to destroy a species that is an irritant to us. We are obligated to weigh the impact on the world around us, as it is not ours and we are only caretakers on a world that belongs to the Creator.
Which is it? Are we simply highly developed animals, a product of nature and its processes? Or are we moral beings, imbued with a higher existence (a soul or spirit), with obligations that run deeper than our own comfort and survival?
You can’t say we’re just animals for one topic, then suddenly switch sides and become all bleeding-heart and claim we’re moral beings with obligations when it suits you on another topic.
I’m using “you” collectively, including myself. Not directed at any one person.
Joe Cool
JoeCool:
Let’s stick with your scenario a) as it is closer to what I have in mind. You still haven’t explained how using our brain to decide to save a species is unnatural. You are simply assuming that it is unnatural to want to save a species that you find repugnant.
Others may find a species interesting that you do not. Others may differ with you about wiping out a species. The processes they use to arrive at their decision is no less natural than yours. So the argument (that trying to preserve a species somehow violates nature) fails.
spe*cious (adjective)
[Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species]
First appeared 1513
1 obsolete : SHOWY
2 : having deceptive attraction or allure
3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC
I don’t have any problems with wiping out the specious.
Jill
Is it really right for us to determine whether a species gets to live? I know some of you might be saying ‘yeah, we are the smartest ones here’ or something to that extent, but does that mean that we can tell who gets to live and who gets to die?
Look at it this way, a person’s close relative was killed, and they try to take the law into their own hands by going after the killer. Shall they succeed, they will be charged with murder. Not I am not saying that it is the same situation with the worms, but are we not in a way doing exactly that, taking the law into our own hands? :rolleyes: While we would consider doing something like someone going after one’s killer ‘wrong’, we do consider killing a species because it harms us right? I dont know, do we really have the power and knowledge to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? Especially when it goes on to such a large scale as a species. Just because we can, should we? It’s not like I’m saying ‘all praise the worms’ or anything.
Being the smartest and the most intelligent does not mean being actually smart. I just dont think we can possibly make decision like that.
Most of you will think me strange for saying so, but of what the heck:-)
Joe_Cool, I will respond to your argument a) above by stating that eliminating a species is the short-sighted view, disregarding the benefits that we might get by studying that species. The example I mentioned above was anti-coagulant drugs (for people at risk of blood clots) that could be developed from leeches.
In response to your argument b), it is still possible for there to be no God and that human beings might still want to develop a moral code, but that would probably be another discussion.
Smeagal:
In the state of Texas (and much of the rest of the US), we seem to feel that we have the power to decide life or death. We call it capital punishment.
Actually, all humans and most animals have the power to decide life and death. I think you’re questioning whether we have the authority to do so.
I still say that we do. If we are a product of nature, then “authority” is a mythical construct, because where does said authority come from? No Author, no author-ity.
If we are the product of intentional, intelligent creation from a biblical perspective, then we do because that authority was given to humans (stated in the bible, hence the "biblical perspective).
As far as other forms of purposeful creation that people may believe, I plead ignorance. I can’t comment because I know nothing about it.
Joe Cool
After rereading my last post, I decided that I came off as kind of a jerk. Apologies to all.
Joe Cool
Smeagal was trying to say we would consider it wrong to kill humans, so why would killing another species be right? I tried to point out that we quite often intentionally kill humans and consider it acceptable, or at least enough people do to keep it legal.
My point to you was the decision to eliminate or save a species is made by the same natural processes. No supernatural or unnatural forces are at work in either case, so both should be considered natural.
It all comes down to self-interest. Right or wrong, what is going to end up happening is this: If a species (which, BTW, is a totally artificial concept - thank Linnaeus) hurts us more than helps us, we’ll nuke it. If it helps us more than hurts us, we’ll keep it. The confusion comes from the fact that we benefit from a healthy ecosystem, and so we need to keep species around that otherwise we couldn’t care less about. Sure, flies may be annoying, but we need them to keep the trash down. I think all of use, including environmentalists, are more self-serving than we care to admit.