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?
|Biostar's Z270 boards race to the finish||19|
|Google RAISR upsamples thumbnails for massive bandwidth savings||53|
|Synology RT2600ac offers up speedy Wi-Fi and tight controls||5|
|Deals of the week: a gaming monitor and system components||16|
|Nintendo reveals Switch launch date, pricing, and initial line-up||62|
|Consumer Reports approves MacBook Pros after retesting||40|
|Report: Desktop PC market shows signs of stabilization||9|
|Chnano RGB LED gloves put some flash on your fingers||42|
|Samsung Galaxy Note 7 pre-flight warnings to end||15|
|So they should never have reported that they're getting poor, hugely-varying results and instead hide inconvenient facts for Apple's sake?||+64|