While I find the OP's post disingenuous, it actually did get me thinking...
a) The vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct (99.9% is one estimate).
b) Homo sapiens' impact on the environment has led to numerous extinctions.
c) Despite b), the overwhelming majority extinctions described by a) occurred long before H. sapiens became a factor.
d) We cannot reduce our environmental footprint to zero, nor can we likely prevent all extinctions.
Assuming that we can't prevent all extinction, then logical question is which species, if any, should we save? By what criteria? Should the criteria be based upon human impact, need, or something else? I don't claim to have the answers. Recognizing that any we take towards another species, positive or negative, will necessarily impact other species in the ecosystem.
a) The vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct (99.9% is one estimate).
b) Homo sapiens' impact on the environment has led to numerous extinctions.
c) Despite b), the overwhelming majority extinctions described by a) occurred long before H. sapiens became a factor.
d) We cannot reduce our environmental footprint to zero, nor can we likely prevent all extinctions.
Assuming that we can't prevent all extinction, then logical question is which species, if any, should we save? By what criteria? Should the criteria be based upon human impact, need, or something else? I don't claim to have the answers. Recognizing that any we take towards another species, positive or negative, will necessarily impact other species in the ecosystem.
