Prompt 08

I think it is a widely accepted notion that humans have a responsibility to protect species from becoming extinct.  The more difficult question is why should we preserve these species?  There are many reasons people can think of for preserving the lives of endangered species but the conversation boils down to three main arguments.  The first being the idea that we should be stewards to protect the these creatures for future generations.  As well as the arguments provided by Russow, protecting endangered species while important on the implication it has on our lives hardly holds a candle to preserving energy resources for our posterity and we seem to lack any consideration on that premise.  Why then would we take extreme measures to preserve animals that may have no use to us.  The other 'Traditional Answer' that while it would seem to be a good idea I doubt that humans would ever act on, and that is preservation on some intrinsic value that the animals possess themselves.  As was discussed in the policy and economics lecture, rarely do we act on things that we say we value.  Sad as it may be, I do not believe that this intrinsic value that an endangered species has is enough to make humans act on preserving these species.  Thus, what must motivate the preservation of species is the idea that they possess some sort of extrinsic value.

Although it is entirely anthopocentric for us to only value an endangered species for our own ends, perhaps given our conditioning as consumers will actually serve some utility when it comes to saving endangered species.  Perhaps if we see that a species is being damaged by actions we may interpret this as a direct threat to ourselves.  Russow calls upon the anecdote of the Condor and the impact of DDT on the thickness of the Condor eggshells, "...presumably we are being affected in subtle ways by the absorption of DDT, and that is bad for us".  I should hope that we are not so vain to think that if a substance we use can have such detrimental effects on other species that it causes no harm to us.  Thus, observing the damage of an action caused by humans we can work to combat this in hopes of preserving our species.  There is also the matter of the instrumental value of a species that if extinct we will never be able to use for science that can be used to save lives or increase our quality of life.  Russow counters this idea by stating that if said organism becomes extinct there are always closely related relatives of the organism that are very similar.  While I am not claiming to be an expert in biology by any means if we are to suggest that there are closely related species with similar properties, who is to say that there isn't a specific disease that has an extremely specific cure that can only be derived from one species.  While this may be a stretch I do not think that it can be discounted.