> > I agree with absolutely everything you said except this. If certain animals go extinct that can affect the entire ecosystem, which could affect us. You know, the whole food web thing. It might not be drastic or anything, but there would still be an impact. Also, certain animals are just fun to have around. I mean, I enjoy being able to watch and learn about tigers, and if they went extinct that would be bad, because I wouldn't be able to watch them and learning about them wouldn't be as fun.
>
> This raises a strange thought in my head. (This is not unusual, as I often get thoughts and philosophies that I do not necessarily agree with but have for the sake of taking new perspectives.) Now, we have heard much about how wiping out certain species would upset the ecosystem. But, countless other species in the history of the Earth have come to being and become extinct. Does this show that the animals that go extinct were not in a position to damage the ecosystem, but those who would be are past the risk of extinction? That vulnerability means lack of influence?
>
> Just my spontaneous thought. =)
>
> --Pliff"I can't think of a word that chains into "ilif

And another spontaneous thought that popped into mine - about all the environmentalists attempting to preserve species on the verge of extinction. Should we be doing that, either? If the creature is going extinct, it's because it's no longer equipped to flourish in the environment as it stands - or maybe as Pliff said, no longer has influence. Seems to me like that'd as much of a disruption of the natural order as killing off a species.

Standard disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

-Fob"doesn't want to see species die out, either, but it is a thought"ulis