Yes d d dddddddddddddddddddddd dd dd d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
YES! I think we should protect endangered species at all costs. Even if we wipe out he human race( which we will not) we will still protect them. Protecting and preserving animals is a gift. Did you know that 1,361 plants and animals were endangered in October 2009? Even if conservation actions are delayed many species will vanish forever. Also, 97% of tigers have been lost in the past century and only 3,200 still remain. That is because of habitat loss, poaching and illegal wildlife trade, climate change and human wildlife conflict. So, yes we should blow up the moon just to protect animals because if we didn't have animals then we wouldn't be alive right now. WWF, PETA, NWF and the DNR are all working very hard to keep endangered species protected and preserved and not risk extinction.
Research had stated that we shouldn't protect them, as it is just part of their life cycle. Scientists proved that mass extinctions happened lots of time, but it still doesn't effect the world, because its just part of the evolutionary cycle. Therefore, I believe that we shouldn't protect thematic all costs.
No, endangered species should not be protected at all costs. Though they should be protected as much as is reasonably possible, the lives of humans must come before the lives of animals as human beings are sapient and thus capable of greater suffering than animals who are not sapient. Thus, we should not protect endangered species at all costs.
No, I do not believe we should protect endangered species at all costs. Saying at ALL costs is ridiculous. Should we wipe out the entire human race to protect the last living creature of some species of beetle? Of course we shouldn't. Saying at ALL costs literally encompass anything that could ever happen. Should we blow up the moon to protect the last surviving member of an obscure family of slugs? Probably not.