If a small group of animals with no connection to other groups die out due to lack of diversity (the wrangle island mammoths), isn’t saving critically endangered species pointless?
In: Biology
Depends what you’re trying to get out of it. I’d argue that saving *any* species is ultimately pointless, unless that species has some tangible benefit to humans, like bees. I’d argue that because I don’t perceive any objective value in a thing – I believe value comes only from how humans make use of it – and I feel no obligation or sense of self-satisfaction from conservation efforts.
Conservation of endangered species is mostly done by people who don’t agree with me on one of these points – they feel there’s some inherent value to a species independent of humans, or they feel a sense of guilt that human activity has driven the species to this point, or they just like to feel like they’re helping nature. For someone like this, saving a critically endangered species is not pointless, because the point of saving the species comes not from the merit of the species being saved but some other value that is independent of the species in question.
Latest Answers