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 expands its Atoms' radius with C3000 SoCs||27|
|Shuttle XH110G packs a PCIe x16 slot into a three-liter package||13|
|I Love My Feet Day Shortbread||11|
|Color is key in Viewsonic's VP2785-4K display||5|
|Nokia 8 zeroes in on the Galaxy S8 and its friends||19|
|Nvidia Quadro vDWS brings greater flexibility to virtualized pro graphics||1|
|Deal of the day: a 144-Hz IPS FreeSync monitor for $400||48|
|Alphacool Eiswolf 120 GPX-Pro takes the RX Vega to the pool||8|
|The Tech Report's summer 2017 mobile staff picks||48|