See, that’s what confuses me. I’m just a guy on the other end of a computer. I happened to like where the OP was going and I just didn’t feel there was a voice for that side of things. I argued it in good faith and put forward what I hope were compelling arguments, so what difference does it make for the purpose of the ‘Great Debate’ whether I wrote those arguments or whether someone who was a ‘true believer’ wrote them. The substance of the debate wouldn’t have changed. The arguments used wouldn’t have changed, so really what’s the difference? I’m open-minded about such things. Maybe the arguments I was advancing were changing my mind and your arguments pulled me back. In this case probably not because I didn’t find either mine or yours particularly compelling, but the possibility certainly existed.
I don’t want to hijack this thread any more than we already have, so I’ve created a thread in ATMB. I will respond to this post there.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21257255#post21257255
Mostly this.
Too many of our pharmaceutical arsenal is inspired by stuff we find in nature. Of course it may also one day create a zombie virus that turns us all into brain hungry undead.
With that said, lets eliminate the mosquitoes that attack humans.
Personally I don’t give a rip whether endangered species die. This isn’t because I believe in evolution though - that doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s because I don’t care about the specific animals in question. In other words it’s an “I’m an asshole” thing.
What I do care about, though, is that most of the ways humans go about extinctifying species also have lots of other effects on the environment which are clearly and obviously going to come back and bite us in the ass. Some specific species of arctic dodo vanishes from the earth? Boo hoo. But if your stripmining/clearcutting/overfishing/wastedumping operation is extinctifying species left and right, that’s a pretty clear indicator that we’re painting ourselves into a corner and then setting fire to the corner.
Another good reason to be environmentally conscious. Don’t fight Global Warming to save the polar bears – do it to save your own ass.
Well I’d say it’s relevant in that the OP is posing the question from the perspective that extinction is natural so why oppose it?
But whether you consider human actions to be natural or not, you run into a contradiction.
If human actions are not natural, then the current wave of extinctions is largely not natural, thus contradicting the premise.
If human actions are natural, then playing inverse-Pokemon (gotta let 'em all roam free) is also natural.
ETA: This is in addition to committing the naturalistic fallacy
You don’t know what a ‘true believer’ would have posted, you just assume you do. You also presented yourself as a rather extreme outlier, derailing the discussion because we thought it unlikely you actually meant what your post implied.
Playing devils advocate is generally better accomplished by starting your first sentence with “To play devil’s advocate”.
Fish and Wildlife Service Delists 21 Species from the Endangered Species Act due to Extinction: Action signals a ‘wake-up call on the importance of conserving imperiled species before it’s too late’
https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2023-10/21-species-delisted-endangered-species-act-due-extinction