groups

Most species that are in danger of extinction today are in that position BECAUSE of man . I read an amazing fact recently . 10,000 years ago , man and his livestock ( if he had any ) made up approximately 1% of the vertebrate biomass on Earth . Today man and his livestock make up 98% of the vertebrate biomass on Earth .Our influence on the ecology of this planet is almost total . Unless something changes drastically , we are headed for extinction .

With the modification may has is and will cause to the biosphere how can anyone tell if it would be the natural order of things if a plant or animal was facing extinction other than by mans hand. I also must ask how many unknown values to mankind ( funny word as man is not) will we destroy blindly in the name of progress.
Yes as keepers of this planet we need to save any species we can. As the single species effecting this planet in an unnatural way we are it's keepers or the virus destroying it

An extinction generally occurs because the food chain is disrupted either through removal of habitat or a species crucial for the survival of those dependant upon it (usually through human industry). Notwithstanding cataclysmic natural disasters such as volcanoes or a meteor hitting Earth it's the slow pecking away at the food chain that has seen the demise of most species in the last 200 years.

Do we have any responsibility to halt or reverse this trend? You betcha. If we consider ourselves the only species not reliant on biological diversity we will surely starve ourselves eventually.

Leaving out the influence of man (if possible). If a animal species is becoming ectinct because of its inability to adapt or any other natura cause. Is it society's responsibilit to help it continue?
posted by yichel

I think so. Man was not around, nor technically advanced enough if he had been to stop a meteor from crashing into the planet, and killing off the Dinosaur. I believe if we have the knowledge, and the technology, we could and we should.

In this ripple effect life everything does impact everything else. We as human beings really have a hard time with that it seems. We are so dependent on the earth and yet we act as if it is ours to dominate and use without concern. We must become stewards if we aren't to destroy our own habitat. It seems that when we get involved with restoration of habitat of a species we are only undoing what we have done and ultimately saving ourselves in the process.I keep thinking MODERATION. Is it possible?

I don't think moderation will even come into play until we realize that unhindered commercialization of previously pristine forests, wetlands, etc, has to be stopped. The intrinsic value of Florida wetlands plays second fiddle to the dollar. If a buck can be made there are innumerable workarounds that allow developers to have their way.

I gyess my question is wrong in that one cannot factor out the influence of man
I believe I read the word "steward" tha is a term that since third grasde I have been told was th role of "Man" on earth but i could never quite define what that means?

It means to not break stuff but if ya do be able to fix it.

Your question is valid and from a hypothetical stand point, I would say no, that it is not society's responsibility to save the species. It would be yet another example of how we continue to interfere with the natural selection and survival of the fittest. Or for the religious among us, Gods grand plan. Who could say definitively that by saving that species, society would not be hindering the evolutionary process and thereby impacting the natural order in an adverse manner. What if by saving that species, you stunt the growth/evolution of another species that could ultimately play a more important role in the future of the earth and those creatures that live on it (including man)?

However, we don't live in a hypothetical world. In real life, it is nearly impossible to factor out man's influence and impact on the process. And perhaps that is how it should be...but given our arrogant and selfish approach as a species, I think it behooves us to try to save all species when ever possible, because once gone, there may not be a way to fix it later, when we figure out that we were wrong or that we did somehow have an "unnatural impact".

We are in a unique position to save species from extinction in many cases. Wether we are responsible for their survival or their extinction is a moral question and therefor opinion based. The best answer would be more utilitarian, i.e.: "What's in it for us". The answer to that question is best modeled by the analogy of the extinction of any plant in the rainforest which might have medicinal value to us. We need these things to insure our own survival.

Every unique living thing that is gone forever takes with it an opportunity to learn and survive which we may need tomorrow.