Topics Environment

Question Many people find the idea of letting a species such as the wolf go extinct to be disconcerting. Many environmental policies are put in place to protect endangered species. Why should it really matter though whether a species goes extinct or not if in the end humans are not harmed? What is the underlying moral reasoning?

Accepted:
April 14, 2011

Comments

We are harmed if species disappear, even if they are rather disagreeable to us on occasion, since the variety that exists in the world is diminished. The reasoning is not moral but aesthetic. Is it not better to live in an environment with more difference in it as compared to something that is uniform?

While Oliver Leaman's aesthetic justification of efforts to preserve endangered species is certainly one consideration that might be advanced in support of such efforts--as well as efforts to preserve plants and other living organisms, such as coral reefs and rainforests (conceiving of the forest as a whole, an ecosystem, as an organism), and even inanimate natural features of the environment, such as icebergs--it's not clear to me that it's the most satisfactory or compelling consideration. Absent some justification for a principle of plenitude--of maximizing the variety of beings in the world--there is no reason to accept such a justification of efforts to preserve anything.

It seems to me, however, that other considerations might be advanced in support of conservation. First, it might be argued that given the interrelationship of species, the elimination of any species, especially a predator like the wolf, which plays an important role in keeping the population of other species in check, might lead to the growth of the population of certain animals that could have significant repercussions in the long-term on the environment as a whole, and hence have significant ecological repercussions for the suitability of the environment as a home for human beings. Moreover, if one thinks that human beings are the 'stewards' of the Earth, who are responsible for preserving it for future generations, then one might think that human beings thereby have a responsibility to preserve the environment as much as it is possible for them to do so.

Certainly other considerations could be advanced: in general, however, it seems to me that whenever when considers such 'applied' questions, one should seek to advance arguments that rest, as much as possible, on considerations that are as uncontentious as possible and hence can appeal to as many people as possible, in order that the consideration can help to effect change. (This is not, of course, to assume that the considerations advanced above are as uncontentious as possible!)