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?
|be quiet!'s Silent Base 800 case reviewed||2|
|MSI Aegis Ti wraps up SLIed GTX 1080s in an aggressive shell||17|
|Deals of the week: a Dell G-Sync monitor for $470 and more||8|
|Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.7.3 serves up the bugfixes||3|
|AMD reveals the full specs of the Radeon RX 460 and RX 470||66|
|Nvidia will pay GeForce GTX 970 owners $30 over memory snafu||46|
|Gigabyte's GeForce GTX 1080 Xtreme Gaming graphics card reviewed||35|
|Microsoft's free Windows 10 upgrade offer ends tomorrow||105|
|ASRock H110M-STX mobo puts the 5x5 platform in builders' hands||15|
|Now you can install Crysis directly on the video card!||+64|