Our goal should be sustainability and stewardshipof our surroundings, but also of ourselves.
Some people think things like the endangered species list and all these ecological and conservation cries are about trying to save, as you say, a few random species. They give short shrift to the fabric that is the ecosystem and have no appreciation for the complex interconnectedness of all of its lifeforms. And this minor ecological scare is known by an overwhelming consensus of knowledgeable scientists in their disciplines as a major environmental shift just like extinctions in the past but happening much more rapidly than this planet has ever before experienced. These concerns and the efforts to abate them are not about some snail darters or southern river otters or a few cherry-throated tanagers. They are about saving homo imbecile sapiens.
The attitude you display here has been prevalent for nearly a century now and is only slowly changing as the political and social powers begin to realize what really is at stake here. I applaud your concerns for the third-world residents forever mired in poverty, famine, disease, and death. Just so you know, by not wasting some of our resources trying to stave off the disaster we are already in, these poor lives are about to become dramatically worse along with those of us in the first-world. Worse still, whether we change our policies or not, we may already be too late.
The point in the panel in my message is that, in the long run, none of this matters. If we continue to destroy our ecosystem, random species by random species, and continue blowing toxic wastes like CO2 into our environment homo imbecile sapiens will become extinct. If we happen to take all mammalia and a couple hundred thousand other species along with us I don’t think Mother Gaia will be the least bit bothered. Two million years from now, just a blink in actual Earth time, no one will even notice, let alone care.
I tried but couldn’t get through his first piece of trash on the subject. His cherry-picked science was biased, his statistical analyses were sloppy at best, his economics was naive and his conclusions were unevidenced and downright illogical. I’ll get my evidence from knowledgeable scientists with credentials in their fields, not some political philosopher with reading problems and no math skills.
I think our resources could be better spent growing more food (which involves cutting down trees, running tractors, applying fertilizers), providing more healthcare (which might involve spraying dangerous chemicals to control disease-carrying insects, or pumping out even more petroleum-derived plastics for hospitals and clinics), generating income in the third world (building industries that may be highly destructive of their environments)
Since we have quite a lot of these things already but lack the political will to equalize their distribution you are correct. Yes, sir. The best diet for losing weight is more potato chips and coke and more TV.