Is it possible to believe in Evolution/Darwinism AND believe it's good policy to protect endagered species?

Question

One of Darwin's main tenents was the notion that only the "fit" survive. Over time and through evolution, according to the commonly-accepted theory, the strongest survive and the weakest don't make it.

If you believe in that theory, then don't you have to also believe that it's okay for species to become extinct -- because they must not have been "fit enough" to survive extinction?

Conversely, if you believe we should protect animals from extinction, and you are intillectually honest, shouldn't you reframe your thinking on evolution and conclude that there is, in fact, no such thing as survival of the fittest?

Answer 1

Survival of the fittest is based on environmental influences.  When humans influence the environment the way we do, we create an unnatural environment.  This means the "natural" part of natural selection is not longer valid.  So many want to save species that are going extinct due to unnatural environmental influences.

Answer 2

Most of these species are endangered due to loss of habitat.  The cause: man.  Our deforesting of habitats is not natural at all.    We (humans) used to be nomadic hunter/gatherers.  If we were still practicing this way of life, our impact on habitats would be minimal.

Answer 3

Well, as a stray side note, a lot of scientists think that Darwin's theory was slightly off; its not necessarily the most fit that survive, but the ones with the best traits for reproduction.  But that's a whole different tangent.

We can care about and value things that might not make it on their own.  While we could decide that we don't mind that the only animals on earth will be the ones that adapt to our presence, we'd wind up with nothing but cats and dogs.  And a lot of insects swarming everywhere with all their predators gone.  Is that a world we want to live in?

In the "natural" sense, its "okay", as you put it, for people to die from viruses and infections.  But we like other people, and don't want them to die, so we develop serums and antibiotics to save them.  Why shouldn't we also protect the world that we like?

Answer 4

Darwin's theories were based on NATURAL selection.  Destruction of animals' habitats by clear-cutting forests, strip-mining, or other forms of human interference is NOT natural.  You're trying to rationalize the willful destruction of entire species just because you consider them an inconvenience, and that has nothing to do with natural selection.

If you're trying to argue that we're the "fittest" and therefore the only species that deserves to survive, I would dispute that too.  If you took the average person and dropped him off in the wilderness without food, clothing, transportation, or any other technology, he probably wouldn't last a week.  Our technology has given us an unfair advantage over other species, and with that advantage comes a responsibility not to misuse it.  With our nuclear weapons, we could wipe out all life on Earth, but does that mean we should?  Of course not.

Answer 5

Your conclusion is nonsensical because your definitions are inaccurate and your assumptions are flawed. You clearly have a limited knowledge of biological science, which raises question about your reason for making the case that you do.

Herbert Spencer coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ and it does not appear in the original edition of Darwin’s book. Further, biologists rarely, if ever, use the phrase or interpret it as you do. Darwin was talking about reproductive success within a species as well as between species, so that those best adapted to their environment could be expected to have a reproductive advantage.

Evolution is not a goal-driven process and, in any case, preserving species from extinction may – in the long term – improve our own species chances for survival. For example, many of our medicines come from endangered plant species.

Answer 6

yes

Answer 7

I believe in Evolution and Survival of the Fittest. But that doesnt mean that I believe we should prove our advancement by wiping out species. Particularly if that would end up destroying us also. If WE are the reason then WE can choose to not be. I see no conflict.

On the other hand, based on your comments.. do you also believe that we are allowing our compassion to damage ourselves? What about extreme and expensive measures taken to keep members of our society alive, and allow them to breed, when they could not survive on their own?  Genetic diseases which must be treated or they kill the person. Or defects which cause the person to live entriely on medical care. Do you feel the same there?

Answer 8

darwin was a fool. animals are on the earth for us to take care of, so that we can eat them.

Answer 9

By that logic, all species would be extinct.  How is that a good policy.  It is just ignorance of Darwin's theories you profess.

Answer 10

Yes. just take into the fact that we have altered our natural habitat in ways nature itself would not. In other word the world is a fire, and we are an excelerant.

Answer 11

Yes you can believe in both.  I believe that natural selection allows living things to evolve to fit more efficiently in their environment.  However, most of the endangered species are that way because of our tampering with their environment.  there for, it is our responsibility to try and correct this tampering.  Unfortunately, we often cause more problems with other species when we try to fix our mistakes.  

If you really wanted to follow the survival of the fittest to the letter, then we should never lift a finger to give medical aid to any person who is ill.  If they live without medical help, they are fit.  If not, tough.   Could you do that?

People used to think that it was OK to let species die out because they didn't see their purpose in the grand sceme of things.  Now, we know that all things are interrelated to the point of possible disaster if only one species goes extinct. People are so willing to kill snakes and then complain because mice eat all their grain.  They want the crows out of their corn field only to have it eaten by grass hoppers that the crows would rather eat than corn.

The sooner people realize how much all species depend on each other for survival, the better off we'll all be.  If we cause a decline in a species, we'd better do something to fix it or we will be the ones who suffer.

Answer 12

You're assuming that all species that are going extinct right now are doing so naturally.  On the contrary, extinction rates are abnormally high due to human activity, and that could very well have a profound affect on our health and happiness.  I, of course, accept evolution as the best theory to fit the data, but I also support the environmental movement, even the bits that are trying to save the whales and the gorillas.  They're not dying out because they don't fit their habitat; they're dying out because we've made their habitats poisonous.  Big difference, especially since we know how not to do that.

I would still be sad if it was just a species that couldn't really make it.  I think it's dumb to live on a flood plain, but I still felt sorry for the people affected by the Mississippi River floods back in the 90's.  People aren't always completely logical and calculating.

Survival of the fittest is kind of a wrong phrase, anyway.  It's more like survival of the good enough.  It's also not something Darwin ever said.  An economist named Herbert Spencer coined it.  Kudos to you for at least not assuming (here, anyway) that it means survival of the strongest.  Rabbits aren't strong, but they survive d@mn well.

Answer 13

Your perspective is homo sapian-centered. You are right in a sense that we are the most adaptible to the environment we have created. There are no wild animals in the city. (Strangely enough, we didn't adapt to our surroundings- we adapted our surroundings to us...)

However, I don't believe in destiny, and not protecting endangered animals, for the reason you state, is like saying "that's mother nature's plan". It's not. And we have the mind to know when we are wrong.  

We have a way of over-consuming, meaning we take more than we need.

It's time to give something back :)

Tali

Answer 14

What's natural and what isn't is not relevant. Looked at in a vacuum, I'm sure you could justify vast extinctions caused by expanding human territories, pollutants, or whatever. But natural selection is not the whole of the life sciences. It is one of many rules that life on this planet abides by, rules identified by the natural sciences.

So while it's true that the fit often survive, it's also true that a population's reach can exceed its grasp and overextend itself. A population can become too fit, run out of resources, and die out because no one has anything to live off of. It's also true that general biodiversity means a healthy ecosystem, and healthy ecosystems can handle our needs and exploitations much better than weak ones. It is entirely possible that we could create an environment that simply cannot support us, that does not have what we require from it. Then the whole idea of what is really "fit" changes, doesn't it.

If all you can quote is survival of the fittest, you're missing 99% of the picture here. What people don't seem to get is that we protect endangered species, and general biodiversity, because it's in our best interests to do so.

Answer 15

Evolution via natural selection is not the only force at work anymore. Now that humans have developed intellictually to a point where we can alter our own genetic make-up and the genetic make-up of animals, as well as our environment, natural selection is not the number one driving force in evolution.

Have you ever heard of a meme? It's like a gene, only it is cultural. In this modern world, there is a battle between genes (natural selection) and memes (human-driven evolution).

You can read about memes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme