Should economic benefit be sacrificed so land can be preserved for endangered species?

Question

What are some opinions? I'm writing an essay on this.

Answer 1

This is the argument that is often made to justify the taking of land from another person without compensating the owner of the land for the taking.

The taking of land includes taking the use of the land.

For example this issue often comes up when the owner of a parcel of land wants to build a home or continue farming the land.

Other people who want to keep the land as open space will often use the issue of preserving that parcel of land for the endangered species, and prevent the owner of the land from using it.

The owner retains title and the obligation of paying taxes on the land but is not permitted to use the land at its highest and best use.

Essentially the use of the land, a valuable right has been taken from the owner.

Under our constitution the owner has the right to be compensated for the value of the property that was taken.

Often the jurisdiction does not have the money or does not want to pay the full fair market value of the property but wants to pay nothing or at most a small fraction of the fair market value of the property at its highest and best use.

If the highest and best use of the property is to build a home on it, this can be very high, especially if it is beachfront property with a mganificent view.

It is well established that under the Constitution of the United States the owner of land in the United States has the right to compensation of the fair market value of the land or the use of the land that was taken.

The proper measure of the value is the fair market  value of the highest and best use of the land.

Answer 2

NO....we have the thumbs therfore we get the land......send the endangered stuff to underdeveloped countries in Africa or something.

Answer 3

We won't have economic benefit if we have nothing left to benefit from.

Answer 4

Yes.  Man is the one that put them on the endangered list in the first place.  Progress is the cause of the endangerment.  Every animal has a purpose on this earth.

I believe that the greed in many, will make us regret what we've done to their natural habitats and the animals that once occupied them.  There isn't a shortage of land (some people own hundreds or thousands of acres privately)  nor is there a shortage of greedy, selfish, uncaring people.

Answer 5

The main article in The New York Times Magazine on April 15, 2007, was titled "The Greening of Geopolitics" by Thomas Friedman.  An outstanding writer.  I think this could be a key resource for your essay.

Green is now the "new" red, white and blue.

Many are coming to realize that environmental awareness and solid efforts in conservation are the paths to restore the U.S. to being a respected leader in global politics.

This includes taking a long hard look at the value our natural resources -- including what the use of them is for the "greater good".  Over-and-over that answer is to leave well enough alone and protect habitats, wildlife and native plant species.  We've quickly learned that the more we do to protect and aid ecosystems, the better off there are for all the species there.

Let me know if you need additional info or links on this.  Happy to help a fellow writer.

Answer 6

Only if you believe we have a special responsibility that other species don't have due to our intelligence. All other species would gladly do away with us if it's existence, or even food was threatened.

It is nature. Every animal is just food for another. Including us.

Answer 7

It depends on the situation. Would the animal have gone extinct without man's intervention? If so, by preserving the animal despite the natural decline of the species we are doing wrong. Some conservationists would vote to bring back every failed species but that is pure nonsense.

Economic benefit is not the most important criteria, preserving our world and working within it's structure are more important. But it is a two edged sword. We shouldn't preserve Cro-Magnum man either.

Answer 8

almost never.

the exception would be for those few species that benefit us.

if you are a religious thinker, then you believe that plants and animals are here for our benefit and those that become harmful (even economically) should be eliminated.

if you are a scientific thinker, then you believe that only those suited to a particular environment should survive.

one has to suspend critical thinking altogether to suppose that every species of living thing alive today should go on forever.

with the exception of the few species of plants and animals lining on earth today, it has been the destiny of all species to become extinct. this is part of the natural dynamic that makes life generally progressive and not static.

Answer 9

Through the course of human evolution, it is clear that due to our "high functioning" brains, we have overcome much adversity and now our survival which was once about staying out of the mouths of lions, to find shelter and food has become much more.

The fact is that we have always left a "mark" on this planet.  Our waste, trash, pollution, construction, development, streets, freeways, buildings, houses.  You name it.  In the name of progress, we've dumped and mother nature has born the brunt.

I am not going to say we are causing global warming; I don't even have to.  Our very existence impinges on every other living thing on this planet.

Imagine an earth where humans aren't.

Gone are the houses, the streets, the poverty, the wars.....

But that's not real life.

In real-life, we are here, we have brains.  We feel remorse, guilt and we also have the power to take a side.

As thinking humans, we must sacrifice a certain amount of land and the potential economic gain sometime, to help try to strike a balance with nature.

After all, without the kindness of mother nature, none of us would be here.

Answer 10

Economic benefit for whom?

The question's an over-simplification of reality.  Makes it impossible to answer, except in an idiotically simplistic way.

My idiotic simplistic answer is 'yes'.  Economic benefit ought to always play second fiddle to conservation, whether it involves an 'endangered' species, energy, whatever.  

But then, while I'm not much of an admirer of 'green' politics, I don't much care for watching strip-mines marching across my desert so's the people in Phoenix and El Paso can dry their hair mornings and kick on the air conditioners to make it seem more like where ever they'd prefer to be and ought to be.

Answer 11

No. We can have both. In China cities are being designed to have the natural habitat lifted onto the roofs. Farmers go from roof to roof via bridges on their tractors.

Watch the Youtube link: He is fast so you may have to watch it twice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTV...