>>>/t/his >>>/i/s >>>/his/

>>8002655
One out of a species of a million animals compared to one out of one thousand. I'd rather save the one out of one thousand. Essentially diminishing marginal value for animals.

>>8002663
What killing about a human (~7 billion) or a panda (<3000)?

>>8002655
Not sure if this is exactly what you're getting at OP, but I struggle with the reasoning that says animals must not go extinct. I understand certain species are pivotal in their particular ecosystem, and their extinction could have disastrous consequences.

But there seems to be this idea that the extinction of any animal is categorically wrong and should be stopped at all costs. This just sits a bit odd with me, since for billions of years before humans, species were going extinct right and left. Iirc 99.9% of all species ever on earth are now extinct. So why all this push for universal preservation?

>>8002655
>>8002711
This is actually something I think about quite often.

I see where you're coming from anon, especially when you consider that extinction is a natural part of evolution. Life has survived several major extinction events on Earth which made room for different kinds of life (such as large mammals and eventually us). However humans are causing another mass extinction event right now on a whole new scale and the current extinction rate is just plain dangerous.

I view extinction negatively. It definitely starts with a natural reaction to losing something you can't get back (cloneable frozen mammoth tissue notwithstanding).
I still try and inject some kind of rational excuse for the feeling though: Animals and their biology are both fascinating and useful, Aspirin was developed with tree bark, snake venom has been used to develop anesthetics, we're studying spider silk to try and synthesize stronger materials, and lobsters, salamanders, and starfish all have qualities which might help in anti-aging/limb regeneration technology.
Not to mention bomb sniffing rats, truffle sniffing pigs, and doggos in general.
Many different species have different and unique qualities to offer humanity, and sometimes there's just no telling how an animal may become useful in the future. Extinction is a natural part of life but I just kinda wish we'd at least code the animal's genome before it's gone forever.

fanciful sidenote:
And WHO KNOWS? if we ever get our genetic engineering game on point everything's genome will be of some use/interest.

>>8002768
>I see where you're coming from anon, especially when you consider that extinction is a natural part of evolution. Life has survived several major extinction events on Earth which made room for different kinds of life (such as large mammals and eventually us).

Do you know where I can read about the "benefits" of extinction? When you say that it "made room" did you mean it literally? As in, it made some sort of systematic sense?

>>8002768

Ugh. The utilitarianism is too strong in this one.

>>8002655
Well, some aspects of ethics pretty much come down to being arbitrary.

Just gotta deal mang.

Or change your system of ethics.

>>8002655
you know how I know you don't have any friends?

>>8002655
I support Human Extinction. and I believe it is the noblest and most logical goal to which we can aspire

Only animals which can be somehow useful to people have the right to existance, because rights are man-made construct in the first place.
Unfortunately cockroaches and pests on the other hand don't even need them to survive.

>>8005260
Don't cockroaches et al keep us from not cleaning our, possibly stopping us from being so unclean that we get worse diseases, while at the same time making sure some diseases come our way so as to not let our immune systems become useless against the world outside our houses?

>>8005260
>acknowledges relativity of values
>gives ontological imperative reality to those values

Retard

>>8004116
Start with yourself mate