posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:02 PM
I think a lot of the endangered animals are local sub-varieties and/or in microclimates. some of these are limited to a single valley or lake, but
are 99% identical to widespread species. so we might lose the Monkey-Faced Disco Hawk, which only lives on the shore of Larson Lake, but we're in no
danger of losing the other Disco Hawk sub-species (only a Disco Hawk expert with a microscope can tell the difference). if you believe in evolution
you accept that species come and go, and if they can't adapt, oh well. (if you believe in Divine Creation you accept that God gave earth to man, and
if the hawk can't co-exist, oh well.)
related; some animal species are 'generalists', some 'specialists'. generalists can handle varied climate/terrain/foods (rats, mice);
specialists must be in a single climate/environment (Koala Bears, which must be in Eucalyptus trees, as do their vicious Drop Bear cousins). natural
progress means changing pristine environments into developed areas (agriculture, mining, housing, Wal-Marts). some of these environments will
inevitably contain specialist species (snail darters).
I don't want to see any animal (or plant) species lost, but we can't tell people not to improve the quality of life. looks pretty hypocritical
for the Al Gores of the world to tell, for instance, Amazon tribespersons that they shouldn't develop to the point of having air conditioning, when
he's living in a climate-controlled mansion (he's just one example of western leftists).