Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Human Benefit from Species Extinction
I think that sometimes as humans, causing the extinction of other species is necessary to our survival. A lot of people are concerned with the morality of this, and argue that it is not our right to deprive another species of their ability to achieve their own desires, and pursue their own ends. However, I think that it is important to consider the situation from a utilitarian perspective. We should be focused on the greatest good for the greatest number. Since humans have one of the largest populations on earth, being concerned mostly with satisfying our needs is not enitrely unethical. If eliminating a species provides a significant benefit to our survival and way of life, then we should do it. One example is the eradication of the smallpox virus. For all other species, this has no known negative consequences, but for our species, the positive consequences are astronomical. Discovering the cure for the virus was one of the biggest advancements in modern medicine. By eliminating the virus, I think we have definitely achieved the greatest good for the greatest number. So is it our moral duty to respect the interests of smallpox, and let it do its thing? My opinion is no. I'm not saying that we should disregard all other species out there, and continue destroying their habitats, etc, for our own benefit. But, I think this example demonstrates that sometimes it is definitely justified to eliminate a species, and we need not be ethically concerned with preserving all of them individually.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, I'm no fan of smallpox, but I think, from a Deep Ecology perspective, we might be able to list the geometrical growth of the human population as a known at least somewhat negative consequence of smallpox eradication. For one thing, this is probably directly or indirectly what's most responsible for worldwide habitat loss. Furthermore, just as Morgan Brown pointed out that sickle cell anemia serves a biological function for humans, it's not completely clear that developing an auto-immune response for smallpox might not be better for human quality of life as well.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I certainly appreciate that smallpox is terrible. But these considerations raise the question of whether there are other ways that we might promote the greatest good for the greatest number. By the way, if we were going by the numbers, I'm pretty sure that virus, bacteria or insect populations might outnumber humans, so perhaps we don't want to put too much stock in that principle. Given that there are so many different interests among different populations, perhaps the greatest good involves an attempt to develop a basic respect for the sheer diversity of "goods."