> > 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?

Here's the thing: the term "harm the ecosystem" is totally relative. What do you consider harmful? A huge asteroid slamming into the earth would kill the lot of humanity off and make the environment unstable for us, but it wouldn't destroy life on the planet. Countless species of animals no longer exist that once did, and certainly there have been environmental effects, just none so drastic as to destroy the global ecosystem (that one probably won't happen until the sun goes red giant on us in a bit).


> 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.

Well, most of the animals we trying to preserve are dropping off because of things we did. The idea is that we can both preserve the species and rectify the changes we made to the ecosystem so as to allow the species to flourish once again.

Stephen