Is it pointless saving endangered animals ?

Question

its part and parcel of evolution... survival of the fittest

Answer 1

If one were to see this planet from space with time frames of some years in between .And see the changes to the earth`s surface.You would see that this is not a normal evolution .

it is part and parcel of an invasive( probably Alien) parasites evolution

But we do not have to go that far ,it is noticeable on the ground in many places especially in all of the deserts we made.And agriculture gone wrong such as Northern China

,

hardly the behavior of an intelligent species that

has learned to lived in a sustainable manner in a self sufficient way in harmony with its Environment .

A monkey does not set fire to the branches it sleeps on .

or destroys beyond recovery its food supply.

All predators have only as many young as their surroundings can provide for ,and they control those that breed to many .

animals and plants obey Natures laws.

there always exists equilibrium or balance

of all species within the Environment .

Humanity ignores Natures laws,

breeds outside of the norms of equilibrium

and destroys habitat of other species replacing it with our own UNNATURAL HABITAT

So our progression can never be called a NATURAL EVOLUTION

The phrase survival of the fittest applies to the fittest of all species ,only the fittest and most alert of any specie survive, the weak ,stupid or sick get eaten by something.

you use it out of context.

And to just throw in the towel and say it is pointless to try and save what we still got ,is a teeny weeny bit pessimistic ,as well as the unawareness of how much all species of life are some how interrelated to each other ,us included although we have messed with the equation

Wait until 2012 before you say things like that.

People do not survive because they are the fittest

they survive because of modern medicines,or technology

and because they are the meanest or have a lot of s*x.

Answer 2

you are correct!

its the nature'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!!

Answer 3

no it's not!!!!!!! animals are endangered because of what people do... concerning evolution, survival of the fittest always come up but that applies to a normal cycle..... with all synthetically synthesized unstable stuff that people have been making, the normal cycle has been broken..... it is only proper that people take time and effort to repair the imbalance they've done.....

Answer 4

Yes, but then the environmentalist groups would half to go out and find a real job

Answer 5

the darwinistic argument's totally defunct now cos "survival of the fittest" is mother nature's way of making sure there's the right number of each species of creatures so the world's balanced & not overpopulated by 1 particular species

ie lions eat deers, deers eat grass. if there's too many lions & not enough deers, the lions will die from starvation, balancing the population of deers, likewise, if there's too many deers & too little grass, many deers will die from starvation. Darwinism has failed in it's purpose of maintaining a balanced ecosystem cos humans are wayyyyyyy too intelligent eg when there'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 & 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' vegetation frm running out

Answer 6

It is never pointless to save something in need of saving.  I would say this even of you.

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

We have the power to wipe out any species we want, so should we? Other species obviously aren't smart enough, or evolved enough to stop us, so I guess they don'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've hunted some animals into extinction, and we've come close to wiping out other species. When we realize our mistake, shouldn't we do our best to restore that species to a healthy population?

It'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's pretty hard to bring it back if we ever decide it served an important role on this planet.

Answer 9

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!!!!

Answer 10

No it is not! We have responsibilities in this place where we live in. If we will look at it closely endageredment is not hapenning naturaly but induced by our careless use of this planet. We better start working on saving our planet before it is too late. I hope you get my point. With what you said its synanymous in saying (Is it pointless saving your very sick loved one?". Now think about that. What ever is happening in our surroundings, we are part of it and is affected by it since we live in the same place and time. You may not notice it, but anything that is missing is an indication of the coming future. ♥☺♥

Answer 11

In the early 70'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.

Answer 12

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'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.

Answer 13

NO!!

save the aniamls!!

how would you like it if you wer dying and no one saved you?

Answer 14

Yes, it is pointless to save a species that has no purpose in nature. Even more pointless is to attempt to bring back an extict species. Environmentalism is a religion that forgets that more species went extict before humans evolved than after we evolved.

Answer 15

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