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?
|Intel enjoys healthy revenue and profits for Q1 2017||4|
|Acer Predator X27 and Predator Z271UV displays report in||7|
|Razer Lancehead wireless mouse is ready to stalk its prey||4|
|Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day Shortbread||12|
|Intel document confirms that Xeons will come in Gold and Platinum||30|
|Noctua confirms LGA 2066 will host Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X||7|
|Radeon 17.4.4 drivers rise for Dawn of War III||14|
|AMD ships Ryzen Balanced power plan with latest chipset drivers||9|
|Amazon's Echo Look uses machine learning to dress you up||32|