Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies

Re:Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies by refurb on Saturday November 23, 2019 @01:10PM (#21615493)

But if you’re trying to limit the impact of humans, by saving a species that would naturally go extinct, you’re interfering with nature.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies by csallen on Saturday November 23, 2019 @01:48PM (#21615717)

Limiting the impact of humans is a means, not an end.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies by refurb on Saturday November 23, 2019 @04:48PM (#21616818)

So what’s the end goal? Save every possible species despite them not being viable?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies by csallen on Saturday November 23, 2019 @05:19PM (#21617000)

Sure something like that, although I'd say it's to save every species that's practical to save rather than merely possible. Whether or not they're "viable" seems irrelevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies by refurb on Saturday November 23, 2019 @11:14PM (#21618303)

Why? What’s the rationale?

If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies by csallen on Monday November 25, 2019 @09:52AM (#21628559)

I don't think it's purely rational. It's probably the case that loss aversion[0] or some combination of psychological phenomena play a huge role. But I suppose the rational component is: If it's practical to save a species, and that species may provide some useful knowledge or inspiration in the future, why not save it?

> If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”?

I get what you're saying, but you have to draw the line somewhere. For example, if more money is better, why not work 3 jobs?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

[ Parent | on HN ]