I have always wondered about the question of biodiversity. Does it matter that a species might disappear from the Earth? There are many more species than we even recognize, and the number we've identified is growing all of the time. Yet we are led to understand that biodiversity is under constant threat these days, and a great many folks treat the imperative to preserve biodiversity as a self-evident good, as if it were dictated by natural law. (I suspect most of those same folks don't subscribe to natural law theory, oddly enough.)
Do we have an imperative to preserve biodiversity, and if so why? How should we weigh that responsibility against, say, the prevention of human suffering or the advancement of human flourishing?
If it is a strong imperative, how does our newfound ability to synthesize a new species affect it? Must we preserve every species that we have created? Or just, perhaps, the warm and fuzzy ones?
|1. BIF - $340||2. chasp_0 - $251||3. mbutrovich - $250|
|4. Ryu Connor - $250||5. YetAnotherGeek2 - $200||6. aeassa - $175|
|7. dashbarron - $150||8. Lucky Jack Aubrey - $100||9. Captain Ned - $100|
|10. Anonymous Gerbil - $100|
|Intel debuts embedded Skylake-R CPUs with Iris Pro graphics||18|
|Fallout 4 gets more love from Bethesda with Far Harbor expansion||12|
|AMD adds refresh-rate ranges to its FreeSync monitor page||25|
|Rumor: Early Broadwell-E benches hint at solid performance gains||65|
|HP refreshes Pavilion consumer PC lineup||13|
|Nvidia teases Pascal GeForces amid GTX 1000-series rumors||48|
|Philips' new 43-inch monitor might make native 4K practical||55|
|Alleged Kaby Lake CPU shows its face in SiSoft Sandra database||29|
|Dell will become Dell Technologies after its EMC buyout||6|