Just because an animal hasn't featured on some wildlife programme or you haven't heard of it, it doesn't mean that animal might not be IMPORTANT to the survival of many other species. I couldn't believe the stupidity of that statement, it's like those who argue for God's existence just because we haven't found the answer to everything yet. If we don't know how it works, God must of done it. That sort of thing. The argument from ignorance seems to be spreading...
Many species at risk are very close to other species that are not at risk; the differences are so small that only the scientists have any interest in them. My main reason for doubting that all species are essential is that so many are completely unknown to us. Scientists have told us that they exist, and we may have caught a glimpse of a few of them on wildlife programmes, but they are otherwise never seen by us, and we know nothing about them. How many mammal species can you think of? Can the remainder be that important? Can their loss matter that much, to you or to the world? Of course we must fight hard to retain as many species as we can; but it isn't a tragedy if we lose quite a few along the way.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
... but I think Marcel Berlins may have written the most idiotic paragraph I've seen in a while. In his article today in the the Guardian's G2 section he bemoans the obsession of some who in total conservation. I agree with him, evolution and life itself are unrelenting adversaries and we must not hold on to all species just for the sake of it. He then, smartly, suggests instead our efforts should focus on those creatures dying out due to human stupidity and greed. However he then writes:
Posted by Jae Kay at 19:37