# WaPo OpEd by former doper: "We don’t need to save endangered species" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 22, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413 "2017-11-22T16:27:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/1 "2017-11-22T16:27:49Z")
My friend Alex Pyron, a former doper, is the Robert F. Griggs Associate Professor of Biology at the George Washington University. He published an [OpEd](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.76a344e92ad5)in today’s Washington Post suggesting that, on a geological time scale (my words), extinction is inevitable and natural, and that we shouldn’t concern ourselves unnecessarily with conserving species that are of no direct benefit to us. Essentially, the piece is an attempt to point out the battle line drawn between science and sentiment (also my words) in conservation efforts. Personally, I believe he got his facts right, but I’m not wholeheartedly behind his “therefore.” I feel like he misses the emotional connection between us and the environment as a vital stopgap to a total "Brazil"ian hellscape. In other words, like a judge who says she needs her emotions in order to discover justice, I believe that choosing to ignore the intangibles here is a surefire recipe for unforeseen consequences. I agree that there is an artificial and selfserving distinction between Humans and Nature: we are part of nature, and our technology, like the beaver’s and the bees’, is therefore, ultimately, also a part of nature. But does that mean that we should ignore the consequences of our technologies and practices on other species and systems? Yes, extinction is the engine of evolution. But it is also a bellwether of environmental alteration. Is it sentimental of me to view the situation from a human scale? Is a planetary perspective more scientific? After considering the position Alex takes in this piece, what is the best way forward; for us and the planet we live on? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/2 "2017-11-22T16:53:11Z")
1. We aren’t knowledgeable enough to determine which species we can safely do without, let alone which ones may become beneficial to us in the future. 2. Even if were had the knowledge to accurately pick out which species were totally useless to us, we don’t know how such a removal will effect those species we _do_ value, either directly or indirectly. Your friend talks about some species that we disposed of without doing any harm to us or the ecosystem, but without knowing what would have happened if they hadn’t been tossed out the window, he can’t say for certain that the path we took was the right one-his is the convenient guess. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/3 "2017-11-22T16:53:45Z")
I’m generally in agreement, and many moons ago wrote something along those lines as an assignment in HS. The devil, though, is in the details and we often don’t know which species are beneficial to us. On one level, we have the “majestic species” that most of us treasure (elephants, eagles, even wolves). And on other level we have our food sources. On yet another level, there are millions of species that we know little about and that are threatened with extinction. What makes us so certain they can all just be ignored and that won’t affect us in some significant way? Yes, our environment is ever changing, but rapid, massive change can have unpredictable results, and we should have some humility about taking that gamble. But the author of the article kind of lost me at this part: > [@](#): > > The solution is simple: moderation. While we should feel no remorse about altering our environment, there is no need to clear-cut forests for McMansions on 15-acre plots of crabgrass-blanketed land. Wow, the answer is “moderation”. Who would have guessed? And I hate “McMansions” as much as the next guy, but it’s unclear to me that that is anything more than just a matter of personal taste. What is that, compared to industrialized farming and massive urban centers? Looks like a cheap shot at those folks whose taste we frown upon. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/4 "2017-11-22T17:03:13Z")
Thank you for that. I have an artist sensibility toward nature and biology. I am not nearly intellectual enough to understand all of this, but I do know about intangibles and the world we live in. When Audobon painted the last Carolina parrots I am sure it did it for the beauty of the bird. That’s my point for the ’ beauty of the thing’ should be reason enough to preserve it. IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/5 "2017-11-22T17:03:58Z")
Everybody dies eventually, so it’s okay if I murder my neighbor. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/6 "2017-11-22T17:06:46Z")
Does the ability to kill off so many species confer the right to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/7 "2017-11-22T17:08:41Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Everybody dies eventually, so it’s okay if I murder my neighbor. Yes, but be careful when choosing which neighbor. You may need the guy on your left to loan you his lawnmower one day. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/8 "2017-11-22T17:32:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Everybody dies eventually, so it’s okay if I murder my neighbor. Did you read the article? Because that analogy makes no sense in light of what the guy is actually saying. Here is just a bit: > [@](#): > > Conservation is needed for ourselves and only ourselves. All those future people deserve a happy, safe life on an ecologically robust planet, regardless of the state of the natural world compared with its pre-human condition. If you were just making a joke, then consider me whooshed. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/9 "2017-11-22T19:00:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > … And I hate “McMansions” as much as the next guy … I’m curious how you’d define “McMansions” and what you hate about them. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/10 "2017-11-22T19:08:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m curious how you’d define “McMansions” and what you hate about them. Nb: The word “McMansion” was inserted by the Post’s editor, and does not appear in the text Alex submitted. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/11 "2017-11-22T19:09:30Z")
> [@R. Pyron](#): > > The solution is simple: moderation. While we should feel no remorse about altering our environment, there is no need to clear-cut forests for McMansions on 15-acre plots of crabgrass-blanketed land. We should save whatever species and habitats can be easily rescued (once-endangered creatures such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons now flourish), refrain from polluting waterways, limit consumption of fossil fuels and rely more on low-impact renewable-energy sources. No problem with this part. He should have led with that in the article. ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/12 "2017-11-22T19:13:13Z")
Brings to mind a National Geographic article where some scientists said they could target a specific species of mosquitoes with genetic engineering or something to kill them and stop the spread of certain diseases. They were hesitant to do so because of unforeseen consequences such as on birds that eat them or possibly having a different species assume the role of spreading this particular disease. Humans are not that great at seeing the big picture in terms of niche roles particular animals play, and as of today once an animal is gone that’s it, I’d prefer it if we attempted to keep animals from going extinct, if possible. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/13 "2017-11-22T19:29:05Z")
This view fundamentally arrogant. Even assuming the frame that benefit to humans is the only thing that matters, we do not know enough about ecosystems to forecast with accuracy which species could become extinct without affecting us, especially since our ecosystems are themselves undergoing systemic changes. In most cases, we’ll get it right. But the consequences of getting it wrong can be quite significant. There have been instances in which a species plays a role in the environment that was completely [unexpected](http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00394-2.pdf) until discovered. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/14 "2017-11-22T19:33:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. We aren’t knowledgeable enough to determine which species we can safely do without, let alone which ones may become beneficial to us in the future. > 2. Even if were had the knowledge to accurately pick out which species were totally useless to us, we don’t know how such a removal will effect those species we _do_ value, either directly or indirectly. > Your friend talks about some species that we disposed of without doing any harm to us or the ecosystem, but without knowing what would have happened if they hadn’t been tossed out the window, he can’t say for certain that the path we took was the right one-his is the convenient guess. I agree with **Czarcasm.** Which also likely has unforeseen consequences. But hey, Trump is already President, so it really can’t get much worse, can it? ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/15 "2017-11-22T19:45:13Z")
My estimation of how important a species is isn’t determined by their intelligence or whether the human species can use it or abuse it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/16 "2017-11-22T19:56:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. We aren’t knowledgeable enough to determine which species we can safely do without, let alone which ones may become beneficial to us in the future. > 2. Even if were had the knowledge to accurately pick out which species were totally useless to us, we don’t know how such a removal will effect those species we _do_ value, either directly or indirectly. Yep. You beat me to it. Agree with both points. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > … The devil, though, is in the details and we often don’t know which species are beneficial to us … What makes us so certain they can all just be ignored and that won’t affect us in some significant way? Yes, our environment is ever changing, but rapid, massive change can have unpredictable results, and we should have some humility about taking that gamble. Absolutely agree with that, too. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m curious how you’d define “McMansions” and what you hate about them. I interpret it as a general euphemism for ostentation and conspicuous consumption that has an unnecessarily wasteful environmental footprint. Some people with large families need large houses, of course, but no one needs a house in which a large proportion of floor space is devoted to wasteful ostentation. Some people like lots of land, and for them, there’s lots of natural rural land around that can be treated in an environmentally respectful way instead of a high-priced acre of artificially manicured sprayed-and-scrubbed suburbia. Same idea with cars, and with boats. When I was a boater, I had a modest-sized cruising sailboat. Some of my friends had bigger ones. We didn’t much care for motorboats, but what we really had disdain for were the multi-story cruising apartment buildings that guzzled diesel fuel and belched fumes with reckless abandon, and which were usually occupied by a single small family with perhaps a guest or two. One such monstrosity I recall was about a 60-footer and was occupied by a young couple with one child. A boat like that might have three separate staterooms, and be powered by something like a 1200-horsepower diesel, working hard throughout a protracted cruise. The argument that it’s OK to have these things if you can afford them disregards the fact that we all have to live on the same small planet in which many of our activities are simply not sustainable. Perhaps not a great many people own apartment-building style motor yachts, but what about their McMansions, their cars, and their general lifestyles? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/17 "2017-11-22T20:51:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Did you read the article? Because that analogy makes no sense in light of what the guy is actually saying. . . . To be honest, no, I didn’t. I was basing it off of the OP’s summary. If the summary was wrong, then that’s why I was wrong. However, now I have read the OpEd…and my rebuttal stands. “Extinction is part of nature.” Yeah, and so is murder, so murder must be okay. The essay was batshit. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/18 "2017-11-22T20:58:54Z")
To those that believe in the idea of “Natural Law”, are there any that are bestowed upon any species other than our own? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/19 "2017-11-22T22:31:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m curious how you’d define “McMansions” and what you hate about them. Totally not my style. But note that I don’t begrudge those whose style it is. > [@lissener](#): > > Nb: The word “McMansion” was inserted by the Post’s editor, and does not appear in the text Alex submitted. Whoahhhhh! Is that kosher, without attribution? > [@Trinopus](#): > > To be honest, no, I didn’t. I was basing it off of the OP’s summary. If the summary was wrong, then that’s why I was wrong. > > However, now I have read the OpEd…and my rebuttal stands. “Extinction is part of nature.” Yeah, and so is murder, so murder must be okay. > > The essay was batshit. Yes, that particular argument is bunk, as is the other one I brought up. But the author makes other arguments as well, and not all of them are specious. I see nothing wrong with defining value in terms of “value to humans”. I’m not even sure how one would define “value” without reference to humans. Everything just is, and at some point it won’t be. In the meantime, we’re here. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413/20 "2017-11-22T22:38:09Z")
There are a handful of examples conservation-induced extinction, which is when efforts to save one species leads to the extinction of another (usually an ectoparasite of the species that is sought to be conserved), so in sense people have already made choices about which species to conserve and which species not to conserve. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-oped-by-former-doper-we-don-t-need-to-save-endangered-species/802413.md?page=2)