Should we allow certain species to become extinct for the sake of environmental integrity?

Question

It's known that man is partly responsible because of deforestation, carbon emissions, poaching etc. But are there some species that we humans protect even though they are unable to adapt to natural geographic change?

Answers with sources to this question will be much appreciated.

Answer 1

I've always thought that extinction is natural and will progress as nature has to adapt or perish.

Answer 2

We should not only allow but encourage the extinction of the following:

rats,  roaches,  mosquitoes, and any species of dog that weighs less than 10 pounds fully grown.

Answer 3

Man is not PARTLY responsible for deforestation, carbon emissions and poaching..we are COMPLETELY responsible for them...and NONE of these are natural geographic change.  Going into an area and removing all habitat, shelter, and food is not survivable by ANY species..including man.  How is an animal suppossed to adapt to death.

Answer 4

Yes no matter what people try and do

.. .. ..

Mankind will have its greedy way

.. .. ..

If it don't stand upright and speak some type of language

.. .. ..

And you can not eat it get rid of it

.. . ..

Is mankind's ideals of how to deal with all that is around him

.. . ..

Answer 5

Yes; we ought to let ourselves become extinct for the sake of the planet. Never in the history of the Earth has any one species been even remotely as damaging as we are, and look at the number of us (almost 7 billion.)

Answer 6

Humans have already decimated the planet and caused the extinction of too many vital species, without understanding the repercussions.  Sea Coral is a prime example (see sources).  If all corals were to go extinct, the repercussions would likely affect all life on earth. Understanding these basic life forms is, therefore, essential to our future.

Each species has its role to play, even the fungus called humanity.  Wiping out mosquitoes, which are a staple in the North American bird diet, would decimate the bird population.  Wiping out alligators would cause an overpopulation of their prey, allowing the sick to spread disease throughout the herds and the deformed to procreate and contaminate their ecosystem.  An example of this scenario is where the wolves in Yellowstone and other areas have been slaughtered, there is now an over population of deer and a plague of deer flies which effect other wildlife (including people).

All life is sacred and none can be replaced.  Mother Earth will take care of her own.

Answer 7

yes. Let's start with environmental extremists.

Answer 8

That is a very good point  but sometimes it depends on what kind of species it is. Then it still would be natural for the species to become extinct

Answer 9

Of course there are animals we protect that are losing their ability to adapt to the unnatural geographic change.  Deforestation, carbon emissions, and poaching are not one hundred percent natural especially at the rate we do them.  As well as the fact that now a lot more chemicals go into deforestation and carbon emissions and that just deteriorates the environment more.  

Almost every animal we're breeding in captivity due to inability to breed into the wild is based on them not being able to survive in what was once their natural habitat.

Answer 10

Do we arbitrarily allow the demise of some species based on some criteria that a handful of people enact? Who decides what stays and what goes? The requirements for sustainablity vary radically. Environmental integrity? Kill kudzu, the cane toad, rabbits and goats on various islands that have fragile ecosystems, but don't let the poorly studied weak organisms pass from the world without knowing if they had the cure for cancer, or something like that.