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?
|Silverstone's Strider Titanium PSUs are ready for a high-power future||2|
|Deals of the week: Z270 mobos, spinning storage, and more||1|
|G.Skill readies up for X299 with quad-channel DDR4 at 4200 MT/s||4|
|Asus' VivoBook S510 is an ultrabook for the budget crowd||7|
|Windows Insider Build 16226 gives users a look at GPU utilization||12|
|Steam's 2017 Summer Sale is downright hot||43|
|Asus XG-C100C NIC breaks the gigabit barrier||31|
|Stuff a terabyte of RAM in Gigabyte's MZ31-AR0 Epyc motherboard||37|
|National HVAC Tech/Onion Ring Day Shortbread||18|