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. GKey13 - $650||2. JohnC - $600||3. davidbowser - $501|
|4. cmpxchg - $500||5. DeadOfKnight - $400||6. danny e. - $375|
|7. the - $360||8. Ryszard - $351||9. rbattle - $350|
|10. Ryu Connor - $350|
|Corsair's Graphite Series 380T case reviewed||25|
|Labor Day Shortbread||9|
|Anand Shimpi announces retirement from AnandTech||125|
|Friday night topic: why the fear of autonomous machines?||137|
|Corsair's new DDR4 modules are rated for 3300 MT/s||33|
|Deal of the week: A 240GB SSD for only $80||13|
|Asus' X99 Deluxe motherboard reviewed||21|
|Intel's Core i7-5960X processor reviewed||175|
|Now we can lose our data 8TB at a time.||+45|