Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Julia
Lv 7
Julia asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 9 years ago

Endangered species facing extinction......?

Do you think its man's duty to intervene and breed endangered species to stop them from extinction or should nature be allowed to run its course?

To save them you have to take them into captivity, is that right or should they be allowed to say in the wild where they belong?

Is there any point saving "wild" animals from extinction if they can then only ever live in captivity?

Should man interfere with nature?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes and No. There are two distinct concepts here.

    1) Breeding in captivity for certain animals is acceptable only if the animals are later released into the wild. "Captivity" here means living (as they grow older) in an almost natural, but controlled space, like the primate centres in Thailand, Indonesia, etc. They have huge "enclosures", actually huge tracts of natural jungle, and they animals are exposed less and less to human interaction, until they are perfectly fit to return to the wild. It works wonders there. These places are right in the natural habitat of the species they care for. It's not like flying orang-outangs to Birmingham or wherever and then flying them back to Java.. absurd. So, in that way, and in that way only, I would agree to "breed" endangered species in captivity. Obviously, breeding them just for display in some creepy zoo is horrible.

    2) If a species or subspecies is "selected" for extinction by nature as many are every year, we should of course NOT intervene. It's been happening since the beginning of life on Earth. And it should continue to be so. ☺

  • Paul
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    I think wildlife reserves are the only way forward. But think about this, Life never stands still. So in the future, say 10 thousand years, the creatures in any reserve will continue to evolve and adapt to their environment, and may not be the same as their ancestors. The only place real evolution is happening now is in the oceans and seas. Even in reserves stock is introduced and therefore the creatures are becoming semi-domestic. Some scientific centres are starting DNA banks of Animal and Plant life as an insurance against future extinction.

  • 9 years ago

    By his mere existence, man interferes with nature. Man's greed and carelessness has needlessly driven many species to extinction and now threatens a mass extinction of so many species, both plant and animal, that his own continued existence is in doubt. So saving animals - wild or not - from extinction can be seen as an exercise in self-preservation.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    The planet is undergoing the greatest mass extinction event since the dinosaurs were wiped out and it's all our doing.

    It's something like 100 to 1000 times the normal historical background rate of extinction and it's accelerating.

    If we are to survive as a species we need to slow this so anything that helps is a bonus.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    is man not part of nature? And man's actions a part of our natural progression and development? this could be looked at in 2 ways, either our actions should be ignored and therefore species left to go extinct because it was part of nature.

    or

    we have developed the brain capacity as part of our evolution to care for and protect other species and we should therefore as part of our natural progression also protect animals.

    Personally my opinion veers towards the 2nd. it is our responsibility to care for animals and offer them a natural and protected habitat in which to live, not to just stick them in captivity.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Hello we already inferred with nature, that's why they're going extinct. We don't need to take them into capacity, we need to preserve their natural habits. In the cases where they're going extinct because of humans (which is 97% of the time), then yes, I think we have the responsibility to preserve them.

  • 9 years ago

    if we cause it, yes, if its nature, no

    im not saying never try to save a species, but its kinda a thin line, if its gonna die out then its gonna die out, and no matter what 'breeding programmes' and captivity we have for them, that doesnt change evolution or nature

    i despise keeping animals in captivity, UNLESS they are endangered, its a sad disgusting human trait

  • 9 years ago

    In my opinion:

    I have no empathy for other creatures than humans, however endangered species should not be allowed to dissapear as they hold genetic variability which can be used to further human knowledge.

    Only for our sake should we preserve any species.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    save the endangerded species because it's very helpful for nature

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    "Should man interfere with nature?"

    If humanity had not already interfered with nature you wouldn't be asking this question.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.