The Instigator
saamanthagrl
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
CerebralCortex
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

We should be trying to prevent species from becoming extinct.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
saamanthagrl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,604 times Debate No: 7041
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

saamanthagrl

Con

I thank anyone accepting this debate, I am actually for the resolution with my personal beliefs, but I want to step out of my comfort zone and negate the resolution.

I am in strong negation to the resolution for various reasons,

'The 'balance' of nature is a myth, everything changes, natural selection is inevitable. We can try to save species, but in the end they will either adapt to our actions and/or perish more slowly, making the philosophy behind our trying to save them the way they are seem kind of silly.'

1. Saving the endangered species is inevitable, because they are part of the natural evolutionary process.

It's simple, fossil evidence shows that mass extinctions (such as dinosaurs) have occurred many times throughout the history of life on earth. If we tried to keep these dinosaurs from going extinct would we have the widely used fossil fuels we use today? No. So lets say we try to save the pandas, and we find that something of theirs we could of used to survive we can't because we continued their existence. After every collapse of biodiversity, it subsequently rebounded, with the earth coming to no lasting harm.

2. Trying to save the endangered species is costly and spend taxpayers' money that could be better used on health care and social services.

It simply does not make sense for us to concentrate on other species when humanity has not yet sorted its own welfare out

Sources for this argument,
(http://www.realclimate.org...)
(http://www.forandagainst.com...) and some from (http://www.sciencedaily.com...)
CerebralCortex

Pro

Ok, then allow me to convince you of what you say you already know,
which is that we should strive to protect all species from extinction.

You argue:
"'The 'balance' of nature is a myth, everything changes, natural selection is inevitable. We can try to save species, but in the end they will either adapt to our actions and/or perish more slowly, making the philosophy behind our trying to save them the way they are seem kind of silly.'"
If you mean that using the balance of nature as an argument to why we should preserve species then you are absolutely right,
this will not be my argument at all.

"1. Saving the endangered species is inevitable, because they are part of the natural evolutionary process."
Not what I was about to claim either.

Here is what I would argue for this cause:
Basically our notion of morality is the exact opposite of the natural process,
since the whole idea behind the natural process is to kill off the weak to allow the strong to survive.
Since, in society, most of us feel a need to protect the weaker and less fortunate amongst our kind,
it would be inconsistent if we hadn't done so for animals as well, that would also make us, therefor, less moral.
Another important aspect of preserving endangered species is the importance they bare or may bare on scientific research, many times this research leads to the benefit of the well being of humans.
Take, for example, the scrub mint.
It has been found that the scrub mint contains an antifungal agent and a natural insecticide (Wilcove & Master, 2008, p. 418).
Also, the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon "alerted people to the potential health hazards associated with the widespread spraying of DDT and other persistent pesticides" (Wilcove & Master, 2008, p. 418).
This serves as an example of how certain fish can serve as identifiers of environmental health and protect human life as well as other species.
Finally, an example of species providing for scientific discoveries is the instance of the Pacific yew which
"became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered" (Wilcove & Master, 2008, p. 418-419).
Endangered species could prove useful to human development, maintenance of biodiversity and preservation of ecosystems.

"2. Trying to save the endangered species is costly and spend taxpayers' money that could be better used on health care and social services."
This is a false dilemma. Either we save endangered species or we invest in social services. Why not say either we invest in our health services or we invest in our military ?
Moreover protecting endangered species is practically a profitable business.
Take for example the protection of rhinos.
There are increasingly strong economic incentives attached to looking after rhinos rather than simply poaching:
from eco-tourism or selling them on for a profit. So many owners are keeping them secure.
The private sector has been key to helping this work.
see: He's black, and he's back! Private enterprise saves southern Africa's rhino from extinction, The Independent, June 17, 2008

Do have any estimates suggesting significant amounts of unaccounted for funds ?
Debate Round No. 1
saamanthagrl

Con

The extinction of species is part of the nature, so there is no point for human to make efforts to protect endagered speicies.

"-since the whole idea behind the natural process is to kill off the weak to allow the strong to survive."

'No species on earth would put the interest of another species above its own, so why should human beings be any different? Furthermore, since the very beginnings of life, Nature has operated by the Darwinian principle of "survival of the fittest". Life forms that cannot keep up with the newest species on the block will always risk extinction, unless they adapt to the new challenge. Man has no obligation to save the weaker species; if they cannot match our pace, they deserve to die out and be supplanted by others.'

"Another important aspect of preserving endangered species is the importance they bare or may bare on scientific research, many times this research leads to the benefit of the well being of humans."

Since you have chosen to show examples of species that are benefitting the well being of humans, I shall show examples of species that are hazardous to humans.

'How would you like to be sitting at the beach watching your kids play in the water when a wolf comes out of the brush and starts going after each of your kids. Helplessly, these kids fought for their lives as a lone wolf caused havoc biting six people on a rampage. This event happened up in Canada just last week. The wolf was later found and killed by wildlife officials.' (http://blog.kingsoutdoorworld.com...)

'The girl was playing Friday in a sandbox at Alterra Park in Chino Hills in San Bernardino County. Around 10:30 a.m., the caretaker heard screaming and saw a coyote trying to carry the child off in its mouth, officials said.'(http://www.foxnews.com...)

'Mosquitoes
Malaria is transmitted by the bite of an infective female anopheline mosquito. It occurs mainly in the summer and especially during years of good rainfall. Anti-malaria tablets should be taken before going into a potential malaria zone. In areas where malaria has become chloroquine-resistant, alternative drugs should be used. Pregnant women should avoid malarial areas.

Mosquitoes feed from dusk to the early hours of the morning. Camp on heights such as hills where a cool wind blows and where the grass is not very thick, away from standing water and not near densely vegetated areas at pans or rivers. Sleep under a mosquito net and use mosquito repellants. Fire and smoke help, and burning Elephant or cattle dung apparently drives mosquitoes away.

The symptoms appear approximately 12 days after the infective bite. Early symptoms include fever, chills, sweating and headache. Prompt treatment is essential even in mild cases, since irreversible complications may appear suddenly. If the early symptoms are not recognised, the victim may become critically ill with cerebral malaria.

Bilharzia
When visiting areas where Bilharzia (Schistosomiasis) is found, contact with contaminated water should be avoided. Bilharzia is found in shallow water that is stagnant or flowing slowly, along the banks of rivers, dams and pools, and especially where plants are growing in the water. If you wet yourself with contaminated water, clean yourself immediately by rigorously rubbing yourself dry with a cloth. The parasite may penetrate the skin within minutes. Contaminated water should be boiled or purified before being used for drinking or washing. Bilharzia infection can be severely debilitating and unpleasant and is not easily cured. In rare cases it can go to the brain, with lethal results. As the skin is penetrated, the first symptoms may be a skin reaction, although this may be mild or may not even show. Other symptoms include persistent fatigue, bodily discomfort, fever and vague intestinal complaints. If in doubt, a doctor should be consulted.

Tsetse-fly
The tsetse-fly, which transmits sleeping-sickness, has been virtually eliminated in southern Africa and only small populations exist. The fly can inflict a painful bite, and the symptoms of the disease, which include headache and a fever, develop after about two weeks.

Bees and wasps
With repeated exposure to stings, some people become hypersensitive, after which another sting could be much worse, if not fatal. People allergic to bee and wasp venoms should not wear floral-scented cosmetics or nail varnish. The solvent (amyl acetate) in nail varnish is the alarm pheromone of bees and provokes aggression. Don't wear brightly patterned clothes. If bees are about, remain calm and move slowly.

Ticks
The symptoms of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever include a sudden onset with fever, malaise, weakness, irritability, headache, severe pain in limbs and loins, and marked anorexia. Vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea occurs occasionally.

Soft ticks
If bitten, hypersensitised individuals risk anaphylactic shock, which can result in death. And , spiders.'
(http://www.cybertracker.co.za...)

Also, "-Finally, an example of species providing for scientific discoveries is the instance of the Pacific yew which
"became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered" (Wilcove & Master, 2008, p. 418-419)."

Modern science has advanced to the point where inspiration from Nature is no longer required. Today, medicines derived from natural products are in the minority. In any case, the upcoming era of genetic engineering will allow mankind to rid himself of disease without resorting to medicines.
CerebralCortex

Pro

"The extinction of species is part of the nature, so there is no point for human to make efforts to protect endagered speicies."

Oh yeah ? So why not extend this concept further and include weak humans too ?
I mean we should be killing off humans that have disabilities,
after all they would die in the natural course in nature anyway.
What's wrong with this argument ?
Why should we play with entirely different set of rules when it comes to us ?
BTW -- you don't really need to use you imagination to see where that would lead you,
because that was exactly what the Nazis suggested.
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists,
revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.
see http://www.answersingenesis.org...
So what's wrong with this, it follows your basic arguments doesn't it ?
Again, this is what happens when we try to get our morals from Darwinism.
Darwinism is a scientific explanation to how we came to be,
but most certainly not of how we should behave.
Thank goodness we have evolved enough to overcome our natural instincts.

"'No species on earth would put the interest of another species above its own, so why should human beings be any different?"
I never said we should place animal interests above our own.
If it would be us or them, by all means, go ahead and kill them if you will.
Thank goodness, its not.

"Since you have chosen to show examples of species that are benefitting the well being of humans, I shall show examples of species that are hazardous to humans."
Yes, the list is long and impressive and I am not going to tackle it one by one,
instead I will focus on your example about bees and wasps:
note that while you are worried about getting stung the fact of the matter is that mankind would cease to exist without bees.
"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."
This quote is from the book "A world without bees"
see: http://www.guardianbooks.co.uk...
If you have doubts about this, then this may help:
Albert Einstein once predicted that if bees were to disappear, man would follow only a few years later.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Sadly this is not hypothetical stuff,
in fact honey bees in the U.S are facing extinction and are being imported to the U.S from Australia.

Moreover the problem is that we don't know what we don't-know.
Every single animal alive may have a vital role in our eco-system that we don't even know about yet,
therefore we must preserve them all.
Also note that sometimes scientific knowledge can be learned via the study of animals even when its not life saving.
Take for instance the gray wolf which you want to kill off.
Here is a paper that studies the gray wolf's social structures.
http://www.experiencefestival.com...
Note that we can learn about our own past and even present social structures from studying the more primitive and simple social structures of such animals.

Finally you say:
"Modern science has advanced to the point where inspiration from Nature is no longer required. Today, medicines derived from natural products are in the minority. In any case, the upcoming era of genetic engineering will allow mankind to rid himself of disease without resorting to medicines."
I am sorry, but this is just absolutely false, can you point me to your source of information on this ?
Debate Round No. 2
saamanthagrl

Con

I would like to thank my opponent, for accepting this very contriversal debate.

"As many life forms are harmful to human well-being, it is downright silly to say we should preserve the world's biodiversity.

We want to exterminate Aids viruses, bacteria that cause tuberculosis, malaria plasmodia that kill millions of children annually, and countless other harmful pathogens. So it is, too, with black rats and locusts.

Our welfare relates directly to eliminating harmful forms of life and we are unavoidably committed to modifying our environments to suit our particular needs.

Common sense calls for accepting that in many cases, this means exterminating some of its elements.

The challenge conservationists face is to keep them as few as possible, and avoiding dogmatic and palpably insupportable claims that all must be preserved." -Ian Parker

"-Oh yeah ? So why not extend this concept further and include weak humans too ?
I mean we should be killing off humans that have disabilities,
after all they would die in the natural course in nature anyway"

Do you consider weak humans as an endangered species? This whole statement is a different debate,therefore is irrelevant to the resolution: We should be trying to prevent species from becoming extinct.

'More species have disappeared from our planet than there are now. Its a natural process. I think that what lays behind the idea of saving endangered species is the wise notion that nature (like anything else) should be treated with respect. Beyond that...you are on a mission..and motivation is less ecological than psychological'

"-Every single animal alive may have a vital role in our eco-system that we don't even know about yet,
therefore we must preserve them all."

'Well, look at it this way, the species that are not gone, outnumber the ones that we have about 50 to one. What if you save one, that should have died out, and in that species, say the green monkey from Africa, there is a disease, lets call it HIV, and this disease jumps from monkey to people, the monkeys are immune people aren't. Millions start to die, millions more die, how many should die before we see what a mistake was made.'

No matter how noble your intentions are in saving endangered species is, it doesn't justify the means you go about doing it. Saving endangered species is a perfect modern example of the ends justify the means. The most unconstitutional law we have in the books is the endangered species act. For the reasons I have shown in my arguments I urge you to vote in negation to the resolution. Thank you.
CerebralCortex

Pro

CerebralCortex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by saamanthagrl 5 years ago
saamanthagrl
Looks like I won though
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
"I thank anyone accepting this debate, I am actually for the resolution with my personal beliefs, but I want to step out of my comfort zone and negate the resolution."

It's called being a devil's advocate. I do it all the time. It doesn't win debates, but it's fun.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
saamanthagrlCerebralCortexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
saamanthagrlCerebralCortexTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brendizzle29 5 years ago
brendizzle29
saamanthagrlCerebralCortexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 5 years ago
saamanthagrl
saamanthagrlCerebralCortexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70