There are two arguments that are present when a question such as "should humans strive to preserve a representative sample of all biomes or aquatic zones." One argument says that a section should be preserved and that humans should be concerned with the extinction rate, whilst the other says that we shouldn't try and fight against nature.
- Argument for preserving a representative sample
The fact that human beings are a species means that they depend on many other species that exist in the world. If an animal becomes extinct, this can have a knock on effect to other species, and humans would inevitably be affected by the species becoming extinct. Humans also have a built in instinct to survive, as do other species of animals. It is not surprising, therefore, that humans feel the need to try and extend the life span of some species, as they would probably feel that if it came to it, that something would try and prolong the existence of humans.
- Argument against preserving a representative sample
The argument against involving ourselves with saving species is normally given as the fact that if animals were meant to survive, then they would do so. This is often referred to as natural selection, which basically means that the strongest survive. Natural selection is a non-random process in which certain animals and plants become less as a result of evolution. Animals that have a reproductive advantage are more likely to survive, and it is thought that animals and plants are constantly evolving and new species are discovered every day, whilst others die out. Is thought that, despite the intervention of humans to slow down the extinction process, there really is not a lot that can be done, as it is simply a case of evolution.
