Convince me why we should protect endangered animals

Well if the Bees go
good luck eating

If not for life's inherent value than for the fact that all life on earth is undeniably interconnected and interdependent by means of causal interactions.
All human life depends on the ecological systems that it emerged from, biodiveristy is an essential part of adaptive capacity and reslience in the face of disturbance events, I.e climate change.
Individual species are crucial for the function of their ecological systems.
>tldr, it's in your own self interest, you dumbo. Learn systems.

depends on the animal in question, some animals are naturally going extinct without negative effects on their environment
I mean, sure something like the bee going would fuck up agriculture worldwide, but if the pandas all kicked the bucket very little would chance because this is a case of us actively preventing the extinction when literally everything about that creature points to "evolutionary dead end"

Ummmm, no.
Panda bears are key drivers of change in bamboo forest.
As their feeding behavior clears pathways in the bamboo, allowing for new adaptation to arise, they are also key nutrient recyclers.
If you think that about any native species it's because you don't know enough about its ecology.
All species emerged from a casual relationship with their environment and are connected to it, and the entire earth.
Not to mention the presence of many species is crucial adaptive capacity.

The pandas were on a path towards extinction without human intervention and the hole left by their disappearance would likely result in rapid adaptations in other species who'd then take over the niche.

>rapid species level adaptations
'No'
Let me put it this way
>more connections= more opportunities for adaptation
>more species=more possible connections

however if we're artificially keeping a species alive in its current conditions we are not providing it an incentive for adaptations and instead ensure its niche is filled preventing other species from adapting to it

Because the majority want it.

Why do they want it? Because most endangered animals that are brought into the spotlight are the ones that are beautiful, majestic, and/or intelligent so we want to preserve them. If you suddenly removed Elephants, Lions, Tigers, Pandas, Polar Bears etc from existence, the world would be a much less beautiful place. On the other hand if there was a random species of ant with nothing notable about it, I doubt many people would care if it was endangered.

We benefit from biodiversity and a balanced ecosystem. Also we just like them.

>Some endangered animals fulfill critical roles in their ecosystem, the collapse of which could affect local human populations negatively.
This.
The biggest and/or most most in trouble animals(you think racoons will be in any threat of going extinct soon?) are big players in their ecosystems.
It seems the collapse of ancient megafauna has fucked up the amazon.
environmental-research.ox.ac.uk/long-shadow-megafauna-amazon/
You realise it would take thousands of years at least, since we have no big herbivores/omnivores in the chinese bamboo forest?
And we are better off keeping the dumbasses for now, especially in a recuperating ecosystem like China's.

BECAUSE we could find a super cure
Also A E S T H E T I C

>what is automation of labour
I bet you think blacks are just lazy

I don't make millions or billions of dollars destroying the environment.

The pleasure and utility me, as listed by other users in this thread, and my own get from environmentalism surpass the small and marginal personal costs of conservation to me.

If I could make a billion dollars making a species go extinct I might reconsider.

Even then, there's a very real economic case to be made about tragedy of the commons, as biodiversity has very real economic impacts. The problem is the billionaires who profit off of biodiversity are not the same ones who profit off of destroying it. An issue of externalities.

But as long as I make less then $200k/yr, those big economic issues really don't concern me.

We should only save mammals. Reptillians are ripping us off! Mammals first!

Isn't this conversation about utility to humans? Speciation happens at rates humans will not be around to see the end of. Especially considering the effects of the mass extinctions, biodiveristy loss, and habitat fragmentation/ degradation of the anthropocene have basically slowed evolution to a halt(see links)
And to say we have 300 years left is very optimistic at our current rate.
static.squarespace.com/static/51b078a6e4b0e8d244dd9620/t/538797c3e4b07a163543ea0f/1401395139381/Pimm et al. 2014.pdf
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/4/544
And I am extremely skeptical at your claim that pandas are declining on their own, considering ecological connectivity and anthropogenic earth system change.

To show respect for the encironment that we manipulate for our gain at other animals' expense.

Idk, not enough people have a sense of stewardship for Earth. Id like this planet to be a lush healthy planet far into the future, not covered in steel

Ecosystems are like finely working machines. Smashing a few little cogs here and there and throwing them away might not seem to make a difference, but does harm the machine. That machine is our earth.

Now, in time, say several million years, the machine (as a system) will regain its equilibrium, niches will be refilled, but shit can get really out of whack in between. And humans (future evolved forms) likely won't be around.

Now it's perhaps true that one small subspecies of beetle or frog or orchid may not bring the whole machine down, but they are symptoms that something is very wrong. Apex predators like polar bears and tigers and shit are vitally important, and keystone species, really should be saved, more important than a few more starving ignorant brown people.

Life itself, planet Earth... they have time, they'll have the last laugh.

>fucking with nature

nope

millions and millions of species has died out before humans existed, millions have died during our existance and millions will continue to die long after we are gone

Look at this cool motherfucker.
The north Atlantic could still have them but people killed all of them for no good reason.

People didn't even eat them, just used their feathers to make pillows for richfags, and they weren't even that soft.
Keeping an animal species alive just because they look cool might be a silly reason but they were killed for an even dumber reason.

What a comically shallow analysis

>starving ignorant brown people
>equilibrium
Shouldn't be talking so bad about brown people when you are an ignoramus yourself.
Equilibrium is pseudoscience, adaptive renewal cycles is how it works.

How do you 'automate' the 'labor' of a whole species that occupies an ecological and evolutionary niche that is symbiotic with and critical to the survival of our own?

Thank you for existing.

Of course, 'equilibrium' is an illusion of perspective. Planetary life itself is always churning. It still makes sense not to cause undue massive harm. An accidental papercut or knife knick now and then might be understandable, but constantly slicing and cutting your body is foolish.

I really don't see what your post has to do with mine

Ofcourse the majority of people don't give a shit about the non cute animals but wait till certain eco systems collapse and agriculture in those areas become harder.

>Great Auk

My nigger

>protecting genetic failures

Maybe we should hunt all lifestock to extinction because we are stronger?

>The pandas were on a path towards extinction without human intervention and the hole left by their disappearance would likely result in rapid adaptations in other species who'd then take over the niche.

When did this meme start?

>probably doesn't have a job or doesn't contribute in the least to society as a whole
you can start by killing yourself, faggot

Non-cute animals have no place in the garden of humanity.
We should should seriously mobilize to erase certain species from existence.

The eradication of mosquitos in and the resulting population boom basically destoryed the Horn of Africa.

>when the ninth post is the best post

Might have been worth it, if they had truly succeeded.

My man

It also had a pretty silly scientific name
>Peguinis Impennis
I would keep it around just for its silly name on top the fact that those who colonized in new france and new england decided to kill them for stupid reasons

>Captcha is centro penas
>It should be cebtro impennas

and then there's the bald eagle

a bit hilarious when the animal that's suppose to represent your country stops existing.

you'll get many jokes of "America will die like the bald eagle" and will never live it down

/thread

Biodiversity is a thing. Inb4 triggered at diversity. Unlike certain minorities insects and animals in a biodiverse sphere play important roles

>tfw too early to program your own food yet

Because preserving the Earth's biodiversity leads to a healthier environment, which we know contributes to a higher quality and percieved quality of life, as well as leaving us with more resources to exploit as needed.
Polar bears are a lost cause though, desu senpai, t.bh f.am.

youtube.com/watch?v=VEMtc1w4z6c

Because their deaths, for the most part, aren't caused due to being inferior animals but with unnatural human interference. Their extinction/removal destabilizes the ecosystem which can cause unforseen problems. For example, in the lower peninsula of Michigan there are little to no wolves due to overhunting and destruction of habitat, now there are a fuckton of deer roaming around, human hunting is now necessary to keep deer population in check but hunting is no longer as big of a deal as it used to be, turns out deer are basically giant rats, they fucking decimate the flora, this destabilizes the rest of the animals in the ecosystem.

Does protection of say, the worthless Giant Panda, actually bring money in to protect other less known species? Or are we just wasting our money on an animal, when we could do actual good with another species?

Because everything has a knock on effect in nature. Take away any animal and something which feeds off of it have a food shortage or something which feeds it will populate more and cause disruptance in the system.

This
There is honestly no other reason why we are letting them live other than that they are cute.

Data said that saving the environment of pandas saves countless other species as well.

Someone post the webm where the absolute madmen released wolves in yellowstone park

Because they are Gods creation

>t. Not an ecologist
See

Because it's costly.

Because we lack a complete understanding of how our ecosystems work, and intentionally eliminating any one part of it has the potential to cause a chain reaction we can't see the end of.

Because I believe the preservation of the natural world and the life in has a value in itself.

Because people generally do not seem to agree with that we should let animals become extinct, if we can prevent it.

We shouldn't, it's just another globalist project, it makes people conflate protecting ""endangered"" species - species that are losing the natural selection game, with ethnic minorities so people could smpatihse with the weak.

Money isn't real

Soon we will lose the natural selection game with that attitude

How? By not giving a fuck about some furry sacks of dumb fat shit that don't contribute to our food chain?

Eliminating one part WILL cause a chain reaction we can not see the end of.
Ftfy

Everything we have depends on ecological systems to exist, you retard.

So many people in this thread are defending the pandas
>HURR DURR IF PANDAS DIE WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN MAYBE THE WORLD WILL END
Ecologists today are more than capable of foreseeing what will happen, and if any of you idiots ever listened to one in regards to this subject you'd know life without pandas would be just the same if not better.

Pic related, the yangtze river dolphin, a species that died out not too long ago. If we dumped millions into preserving them they would be alive today, but they look like aquatic jews, not the fluffy cute fatasses that are pandas, so no one would want to pay so much to keep them alive.

This is the hypocrisy of mankind plain and simple, if you want to spend more on pandas than anything else, at least don't bullshit the people and claim it's for MUH ECOSYSTEM when you're spending way less for more important species and letting them die off.

I am an ecologist.........
A good deal of the posts in this tread was an ecologist defending pandas.

Conserving the Yangtze River dolphin was incomparable with the agenda of PRC.
I find it hilarious that you are trying to talk about ecology from the perspective of a single species and not the ecological systems they have an interdependent relationship with. It's almost like you don't understand ecology at all.

You agree that China handpicks which of the endangered species are preserved and which aren't, so you'd have to agree that it is in fact bullshit to claim endangered species are conserved equally.

I'd rather they'd be conserved smartly, and yet they're not, more money is spent on dying pandas which are only important to the ecosystem because they eat bamboo(as if they're the only species to do so) than on whales.

The money that goes into conserving pandas also goes into preserving their habitat.....
You are greatly downplaying the importance of the panda to bamboo forests. Clearing large pathways through bamboo is crucial to produce habitat for new communities to establish themselves in.

It seems like you have a problem with capitalism and not the conservation of endangered species.

I like to believe that we are above reducing everything to a cost/benefit analysis. I believe that natural life should be preserved for it's own value and beauty, if the animal or plant in question is not incredibly harmful to humans.

Well that's what the OP made the conversation about, all life holds inherent value.
Sometimes you have to resort to arguing from an utilitarian perpspective to win over the dumbasses.
An species that are harmful to humans should be avoided and not eradicated, as they almost definitely do more good than harm.

Capitalism has it's flaws but it isn't really at fault here, China is a communist(ish) nation after all. I agree with conserving species EVEN if it takes a large effort, but I want it to be done rationally, and from what i've seen it's not.

This. However, as this user says, we should be actively exterminating mosquitos.

China still depends on money to do anything, more state capitalism than communism, communism typically doesn't do much in the way of ecological protection either, except for some theoretical styles of communism.
If things didn't have to be economical we would see much more effort going into the preservation of other species.
None of this denies the fact that pandas ought to be protected.

is truly god's gift to earth, I would suck his dick upon command even tho I'm not even gay

>China
>communist
lol

Basically this

Preserving DNA duh.

>freshwater cetacean
The ancestors of this thing is retarded.

>Or are we just wasting our money on an animal, when we could do actual good with another species?

>If we dumped millions into preserving them they would be alive today, but they look like aquatic jews, not the fluffy cute fatasses that are pandas, so no one would want to pay so much to keep them alive.

>I agree with conserving species EVEN if it takes a large effort, but I want it to be done rationally, and from what i've seen it's not.

This is just a convenient cudgel of "hypocrisy" for conservatives to beat environmentalists with and an excuse to defund all conservation efforts, not just "useless" ones.

Just like how conservative support for nuclear power evaporated after fracking made natural gas, which by happy coincidence is far cleaner burning than coal, so cheap that utilities cancelled almost all of their new reactors.

helping secure the biosphere only helps us

destroying it makes our lives harder and all sorts of animals large and small are needed to keep things in order for us to be comfortable.

not as costly as not doing it.
really the cost is incredibly low

plus money is an illusion

You all need an excuse, to not kill things?

Pop nature writers propagated it in order to ferment dissent against environmentalist causes. People still say shit about the kakapo even though they've been steadily increasing in population for the past three decades. These people don't rely on facts, they rely on what propaganda ministers tell them from various news media outlets and take it as gospel. Hence misconceptions about even basic biology.

All to Monsanto's plan.

If costly if you own a corporation that profits off of environmental exploitation, yes.

Keeping species alive is an example of our proper stewardship of the planet and protecting biodiversity keeps the ecosystems stable and will help the planet bounce back from any future catastrophe. And should humanity fail one of those species we saved either directly or indirectly may end up becoming the next intelligent species.

It's not that much effort and it's better to keep from making possible mistakes that are irreversible. Extinction is forever.

contrarianism is one hell of a drug

>humans
>wanting other intelligent species
>wanting competition

Might as well be arguing with a brick wall user. People won't be satisfied until every last square inch of this Earth is converted to a ecumenepolis, and when they've buried every last ounce of their humanity and their nature in the wretched name of "progress", they will move on to do the same to other life-bearing planets.

Learn to read, my friend. I said if humanity should fail, as in FAIL fail.

>implying anybody is going to try and save a species on the off chance we extinct ourselves and they take our place five million years later

You learn to read.

There is actually a province or two in China were bees have died out and pollination became a human industry. Supposedly it boosted produce yields because a million chinamen with paintbrushes are more thorough than bees and there was an economic boost because suddenly all those people have income that they can start cycling into the economy.

From there its not hard to imagine the automation of pollination through a process similar to crop dusting, or maybe some enterprising robotics nerd will invent the 'IBee'.

youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

>implying supposed "hand pollination" in China isn't supplemented with imported bumblebee hives

Stop falling for propaganda.

Actually, that's only half true. Human 'pollination' is costly as fuck (it's why real vanilla is so expensive, since it's human pollinated -- we do not know what it's natural pollinator is or ever was). It did not lead to an economic boom, it led to higher costs.

Over-pollination, or 100% pollination is not necessarily a good thing. Then all the weakling mutant plants grow and spread their seeds. Also, it's reduces the overall quality of fruit (as far as human consumption is concerned).

Small-scale or 'backyard' orchard owners (it's a pain on the industrial scale) often snip off a third or so of the buds off, so the tree can focus all its sugars and waters into less, but tastier, fruit.

/thread

I had a feeling that hand poolination wasn't a good replacement for bees, but do you think that in the future there could be a viable alternative to natural or labor intensive pollination?

Wipe out mosquitoes. They are only necessary for one flower in Canadian marshes.

>not wanting to population control SSA