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|
|Cooler Master's Mizar mouse reviewed||6|
|Cooler Master's Nepton 240M liquid cooler reviewed||15|
|AMD cuts A-series desktop processor prices||41|
|Get Shorty: Gigabyte intros mini GeForce GTX 970||16|
|Toshiba intros $330 notebook with 360-degree hinge||24|
|''Biggest ever'' iPhone launch drives strong Q4 Apple financials||63|
|IBM-GlobalFoundries deal faces regulatory hurdles||40|
|You can now pre-order Asus' $199 Win8.1 netbook||42|
|Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare needs 6GB of RAM and 55GB of storage||111|