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. Hdfisise - $600||2. Ryszard - $503||3. Andrew Lauritzen - $502|
|4. the - $306||5. SomeOtherGeek - $300||6. Ryu Connor - $250|
|7. doubtful500 - $200||8. Anonymous Gerbil - $150||9. webkido13 - $135|
|10. cygnus1 - $126|
|New Need for Speed looks like a lean, mean machine||65|
|Friday night topic: how dinosaurs probably looked||28|
|Thermaltake's Suppressor F51 mid-tower looks a tad familiar||2|
|Umbra action RPG uses Megascans tech to glorious effect||19|
|Deal of the week: 27'' AHVA monitor for $300, The Witcher 3 for $39||19|
|F1 2015 offers a new formula for racing fans||8|
|The Witcher 3 developer explains controversial graphics downgrade||45|
|Frostbite engine lead teases next-gen Radeon||35|