A related thread on the number of species that have existed on Earth throughout time has me thinking again about extinction and evolution as well as man’s efforts to alter the paths of both (for good and bad).
In some cases, it makes sense to reverse the effects of man on local species. A lack of large predators in New England such as the catamount and wolf have led to imbalances which coyotes have filled. In this area, the large predators have disappeared, but are not extinct elsewhere. In other regions, they’re on the increase. Still, efforts exist to restore populations to the region. That makes sense because there are still imbalances in the local ecology, including far too many large herbivores. Restoring the original balance is one way of making things “right”.
However, in other cases, the argument seems harder to make. For example, there are some plants in small pockets on higher summits that are remnants of the Ice Age and can be found nowhere else on Earth. These plants are clearly on the way out evolutionarily speaking. Barring any medicinal value*, why should we care if they disappear? Clearly, they couldn’t adapt and thrive in our current climate. Perhaps our efforts to preserve these relics will interfere with the evolution of other, more common plants which would otherwise fill the gap. Is the answer novelty? Are rare plants and animals morally equivalent to old baseball cards and antiques?
So my question is: What are the arguments for preserving species which are evolutionary dead ends? Unless man has had a hand in their decline, aren’t most rare species evolutionary dead ends?
Incidentally, I am all for preserving rare species. I am merely interested in the various arguments on both sides, so please no personal attacks. If I have made an incorrect assumption, corrections are welcome.
[sub]* Recently, one of these plants was found to exude an antifreeze-like substance that helps it survive the harsh summit winters.[/sub]
Medical/economic value of rare species: seeing how (a) we have only managed to identify, let alone study, about 5-15% of the species of critters out there, and (b) we have little idea what our medical/economic needs in the future will be, it is in our best interests to preserve as many rare species as possible in case we determine in the future that we do need them;
Medical/economic value of rare species, part II - interdependence: even if at some point we determine that Rare Species X has no direct medical/economic value, we are still just beginning to understand the interdependence of critters. It may be that Rare Species X is of no value, but it plays a crucial role in the local ecology of Rare Species Y, which does have medical/economic value.
Man’s role in decline of rare species: That’s a pretty hard thing to clearly delineate. You used as an example Ice Age populations stranded on upper summits. If these species are now at risk, it’s probably due, wholly or in part, to global warming. We are at the infancy of understanding the impact man has had on the environment.
Extinction is as much in the natural order of things as speciation. Every species has a time limit, and for some, their time is now up. I see no moral imperative in attempting to “rescue” these species (though it may be difficult to determine which are naturally on their way out, and which we are responsible for).
However, man is responsible for a good many extinctions - these I believe, we should at least make an effort to save, for the same reason criminals are often asked to make amends to their victims: it’s the “right” thing to do.
However again, in some cases, our effect has been to alter the environment to such a degree that the extinction of some organisms is pretty much a foregone conclusion; they are unable to adapt to the environment as we have affected it. Again, there is probably little we can do for these species.
Even among those which we attempt to save, we may well be deluding ourselves. The California Condor is effectively extinct in the wild, even though some of these animals still exist. No matter how much time and effort we put into raising the young and later introducing them into the wild, it is unlikely they will survive as a species, since our very efforts have modifed them to some degree. The current California Condor is but an imitation of the “real” thing.
In 1996, I took a class called “Philosophy of Conservation Biology” at university, studying the various ecological movements’ principles and theoretical groundings. One interesting fact that came out was the absolute lack these days of studying plants and animals for possible medicinal benefits. One of the common arguments for preserving wilderness is the case of the Madagascar Periwinkle, a flower found in Madagascar and India that was discovered to produce certain substances useful in fighting cancer and regulating diabetes. Nowadays, however, pharmaceutical companies have moved beyond the study of flora and fauna as sources of beneficial substances, in favor of direct molecular modelling and computer simulation.
Look, the most persuasive argument for saving endangered species is that the world would be a less interesting place without them. Every single species has enough beauty and complexity to keep many universities full of scientists busy studying them for centuries.
Look, most rare species are not going to cause ecological collapse if they go extinct. A perfect example are all the island endemics. If the Hawaiian islands sank tomorrow hundreds of unique and fascinating creatures would go extinct. But the global ecosystem would barely notice.
We shouldn’t have to ask what use a species has. What use do books have? Some are useful, some aren’t. That doesn’t mean that we should be cheerful as the libraries start burning down, even if we save all the books we especially like.
Just to add a wrinkle, even if Man has caused extinction why do we not consider that a natural extinction. We are still part of the ecosystem whether we alter it or not. Just as an ant colony may destroy an area of grass it inhabits or an elephant herd may consume all the food in its area, we as living creatures consume materials for our own needs. Because we have adapted better doesn’t make us distinct and the extinction’s we cause are just as natural as an earthquake, fire, famine, increased predator population or climate change. The only difference is that we have a better understanding of the results of our actions.
