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?
|Apple's A9 impresses and the Nexus strikes back: The TR Podcast 188||2|
|Color is key with Dell's latest trio of Ultrasharp displays||24|
|Android 6.0 Marshmallow rolls out to Nexus devices starting today||14|
|Google Fiber has arrived in Damage Labs||102|
|Silverstone's PT18 chassis lets NUCs run fan-free||8|
|Intel to begin shipping Skylake CPUs with SGX enabled||20|
|Premium HDMI cables will be ready for next-generation media||49|
|Microsoft acquires Havok physics engine from Intel||84|
|AMD unleashes mobile Tonga with the FirePro W7170M||14|