Is it pointless saving endangered animals ? its part and parcel of evolution... survival of the fittest

Best Answer

the darwinistic argument%26#039;s totally defunct now cos %26quot;survival of the fittest%26quot; is mother nature%26#039;s way of making sure there%26#039;s the right number of each species of creatures so the world%26#039;s balanced %26amp; not overpopulated by 1 particular species

ie lions eat deers, deers eat grass. if there%26#039;s too many lions %26amp; not enough deers, the lions will die from starvation, balancing the population of deers, likewise, if there%26#039;s too many deers %26amp; too little grass, many deers will die from starvation. Darwinism has failed in it%26#039;s purpose of maintaining a balanced ecosystem cos humans are wayyyyyyy too intelligent eg when there%26#039;s too little food people grow it.

so in order to prevent the ecosystem from collapsing even more frm the pressure of failed darwinism, we shd help mother nature do her job %26amp; save endangered species. all animals have a role to play in maintaining the ecosytem eg. earthworms fertilise the soil, bees pollinate the flowers, vultures clean carcasses, carnivorous animals control the herbivorous population which in turn prevents the worlds%26#039; vegetation frm running out

Asker's Rating:

i see what you are saying but i totally disagree with you. humans are as much a part of nature as any other living thing.and as much a part of the evolutionary process .many creatures have as big an impact as humans on the environment eg. insects and bacteria. they have had time to adjust

Other Answers (14)

• In the early 70%26#039;s when everyone was spraying with malathion and poisoning every raptor in the world, causing the American Bald Eagle distinction - THAT is survival of the fittest?
  
  NOPE.. way off track with this one.
• NO!!
  
  save the aniamls!!
  
  how would you like it if you wer dying and no one saved you?
• If we save an endangered species by undoing a problem we have created, perhaps the fact of undoing that problem may help us to survive too.
  
  It is not only pollution that causes extinction. But don%26#039;t forget it.
  
  We have removed many forest and wilderness habitats putting their inhabitants in danger. No Darwinian argument fits here. We can not assert that any group of species can adapt to the environment we have created.
  
  When we provide an environmental change like introduction of species that have not been part of the local environment, we can not be confident that ANY of the species in this environment will survive. We may have to limit the impact of the changes we introduce, not just for a few endangered species, but to protect even our own species.
• Yes, evolution is a natural occurrence..but humans have sped up the process to an alarming rate. We do not even know the repercussions of making animals go extinct before their time.
• We have the power to wipe out any species we want, so should we? Other species obviously aren%26#039;t smart enough, or evolved enough to stop us, so I guess they don%26#039;t deserve to be here. Survival of the fittest right? ...WRONG!
  
  A lot of the creatures on the endangered species list are there as the result of humans. I am no hippie or tree hugger, but I do think we need to coexist with the rest of the creatures on the planet. There are many animals on the endangered species list who serve a purpose on the Earth and help regulate the environment. We%26#039;ve hunted some animals into extinction, and we%26#039;ve come close to wiping out other species. When we realize our mistake, shouldn%26#039;t we do our best to restore that species to a healthy population?
  
  It%26#039;s not a lost cause, and many species put on the endangered species list are able to return to more populous numbers after being protected and helped to reproduce.
  
  So why not try to protect and save a species from going extinct? Once we let an animal die off for good it%26#039;s pretty hard to bring it back if we ever decide it served an important role on this planet.
• i feel u r absolutely correct only the best adaptable species have to survive .also now with advancement in technology species like tigeron(tiger and lion) r bein created
• It is never pointless to save something in need of saving. I would say this even of you.
• you are correct!
  its the nature%26#039;s rule..
  
  but since we are the only rational creatures on this planet,its our duty to save those animals..
  
  can specialized species like liger(lion and tiger) can be formed
  if endangered species like lions and tigers becomes extinct?
  
  if we save them we can expect for more amazing species!!
• Are we not part of evolution, is not the human brain part of evolution, if the answer is yes, then should we with our knowledge that we are alll part of the world,realise, surely plant and animals are part of this world also, we all rely on each other to survive, survival of the fittest relies upon the food chain and endangered animals are part of that chain, without that link, ultimately we are lost! So with our evolved brain we protect the endangered species, thus protecting ourselves, selfish maybe, but humans have the selfish gene, so to be a selfish human, we need to protect our fellow species!!!!