The Instigator
williamsh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should we try to save endangered animals and plants from extinction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,269 times Debate No: 27224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

williamsh

Con

Natural selection is the survival of species which are able to meet the challenges posed to them. It is clear that successful species will survive if they can adapt successfully and breed. With this in mind, how can it be useful to save species from extinction? If we save endangered species are we in danger of preventing new ones from arising? Should we really be re-introducing extinct species into the wild? Surely every organism has a role to play but if that role no longer exists in the natural environment why interfere?
Ore_Ele

Pro

I will be arguing that we do want to protect endangered animals and that it is for our own benefit to maintain the environmental status quo.

==PRO'S CASE==

1) Our economy

Our economy is designed to fit with the current species on the planet. We've made antivenom which are designed against the venom of current living animals. If those animals go extinct and new species come up, that means we have to re-create the antivenom for the new specifies. This applies to pesticides, medicines, antibiotics, probiotics, and even simple things like pet food. These have all been designed for the current species that we live with. Any introduction of new species will cause us to have to recreate some of them and harm our economy.

2) Our dominance

Species die out because they are not able to adapt to a changing environment and compete. Their extinction creates a void that can be filled by new species (as my opponent suggests) which may be better suited for their new environment and can compete better. However, this is not a good thing. We don't want any animals or plants actually able to compete with us. Any challenges to our dominance could result in us, someday, no longer being the dominant species on this rock. Now that we are at the top, we want to keep all those other animals below us, and the best way to do that is to not allow any new unknown wildcards into the deck.

I will end my argument with this and allow my opponent to respond.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
williamsh

Con

My opponent suggests that saving extinct animals and plants from extinction would be detrimental to our economy, but I would suggest that trying to save them in the first place is detrimental to the economy; How much of our resources are we spending on trying to save these organisms? I would have thought billions. Also the likelihood of a new species arising quickly (too quick to develop an anti venom) is very unlikely as the cyclical nature of natural selection means that this will take a considerable amount of time for a new species to firstly develop in the first place and secondly be venomous. Surely the considerable damage to the economy in spending money on saving animals and plants from extinction with breeding programmes and conservation who have little chance of survival without our intervention is greater than the risk of a new species developing. I am for conservation of areas of natural beauty where the organisms are given a chance of independent survival but surely too much interference e.g. breeding programmes and reintroduction to the wild is not an efficient use of money. As for new species and their effect on current medicines, etc. How many species do we actually need to 'protect' ourselves against, very few.

The only species who can really compete with us are viruses. We aren't trying to protect these. The suggestion that any other species can form and compete with us is irrelevant as new species of multicellular plants and animals takes very long periods of time to form. The biggest threat to humans is a virus which can wipe out the human species without even trying to hard. Viruses are evolving new species all the time and always present 'wildcards' every winter season. Also the suggestion that we are 'on top' depends on your viewpoint. I would like to think that humans live alongside animals and plants in an our own environments and we are just as dependent on them as they are on us. We need to treat all organisms with respect and realise that we are co-dependent on the delicate balance that exists for survival.
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for their last round. I will by bypassing most of what they said and focus primarily upon their final sentence.

"We need to treat all organisms with respect and realise that we are co-dependent on the delicate balance that exists for survival."

This is basically what I said with my opening line, "...we do want to protect endangered animals and that it is for our own benefit to maintain the environmental status quo."

As my opponent has said, this "delicate balance" is needed for our "survival." As I've been arguing, part of that balance is the current set of species, and thus the maintenance of that balance requires the maintenance of the current set of species.

My opponent does make some arguments that depending on what we try, that can harm our economy. Of course, that is if you do too much and go too far. May side of the debate is not we must do anything and everything, but that we must try. There are many methods that we can try to save many endangered animals to protect this vital balance. However, I need not go into what methods we should try, only that the we should make the effort to maintain the balance and current set of species.

As we move into the final round, I look forward to the summary of the debates for each side.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
williamsh

Con

williamsh forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Pro

Well, my opponent has missed their last round and in the previous one they pretty much agreed with me so we'll let this end.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ThomasJefferson 4 years ago
ThomasJefferson
williamshOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
williamshOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and Con does not refute Pro's arguments fully.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
williamshOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit