Is nature worth preserving?

Plastic Animals ? please ! Im Totally With You , It’s a Losing Proposition , If i Were You i Wouldn’t Be a part Of It

By preserving forests etc. this helps to keep the earth in its natual balance in relation to chemicals such as carbon dioxide and other global warming molecules. By wiping out species and forests this will obviously damage the planet, in regards to global warming once the earth reaches a critical temperature this will start the release of methane hydrates beneath the earth’s surface, methane is a greenhouse gas about 30times the strength of carbon dioxide, this will then cause a runaway global warming effect causing crops to fail over the world as farmers have to deal with unusual weather patterns.

This is my answer from a recent post regarding whether is it anti-nature for humans to preserve species I think it works well for this question too:
There is quite a few reasons for which humans should try and preserve species, by maintaining a high level of genetic diversity this will obviously allow for an increased liklihood that a certain animal or plant will become resistant to certain diseases and subsequently be useful in medical advances for humans. It is in our own interest to maintain this level of genetic diversity.
It is also important that effects we cause on the natural environment such as fishing down the trophic level of the food chain does not cause massive ecosystem collapses, by endangering one species though human behaviour such as pollution/hunting etc. this can have huge detramental effects on lower and higher trophic levels therefore causing a ripple effect which can easily get out of hand, allowing some species to dominate entire ecosystems hugely restricitng the genetic diversity of an area leaving it open and suceptible to extiction by other climatological or biological changes, this can leave barren areas where nothing can exist.
an example of this is the human removal of sea otters from kelp forests, without the otters the sea urchin populations exploded therefore causing huge destruction to the kelp. urchin armies have been seen to fell almost entire kelp forests killing off other species living in balance with the presence of the kelp. this has left huge rocky barrens where nothing lives.

Saving ecosystems and species is not just for the ecosystem or species benefit, it benefits us too.

We must preserve nature. Without nature what would we have? No grass, no trees, no animals, no fish, no mammals.
We would have a concrete jungle.
No thanks, not for me.

I wouldn’t want to live in a world without nature. How depressing it would be.

By saving nature, we save ourselves.
Nature is the reason we have air to breathe, medicines to heal us, food to eat and water to drink.
It is a symbiotic relationship.

Earth (or the Earth)

“Home to millions of species including humans, Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist. The planet formed 4.54 billion years ago, and life appeared on its surface within a billion years. Since then, Earth’s biosphere has significantly altered the atmosphere and other abiotic conditions on the planet, enabling the proliferation of aerobic organisms as well as the formation of the ozone layer which, together with Earth’s magnetic field, blocks harmful solar radiation, permitting life on land. The physical properties of the Earth, as well as its geological history and orbit, have allowed life to persist during this period. Without intervention, the planet could be expected to continue supporting life for between 0.5 to 2.3 billion years, after which the rising luminosity and expansion of the Sun – as a result of the gradual but inexorable depletion of its hydrogen fuel – would eventually eliminate the planet’s biosphere”.
We should really make the most of what we have got left & to the best of our ability preserve as many eco systems in nature as possible to help keep our planet Earth in relative equilibrium, for the benefit of all it’s inhabitants, not just us destructive & selfish humans…. :-/

All the ugliness in the world is generated, manifested by the ugliness within.

Mans dark side, ego.

From cities to ugly archetecture to deforestation to ‘strip’ malls.

Never has the ugliness been so apparent as in the last 100 years.

The industrial revolution has had monsterous effects on the paradise of which we were intended to inhabit.

As always, preservation, like charity begins at home.

@filmfann
“Nature is the reason we have (...) medicines to heal us”
Huh? Is modern medicine a product of nature, now? How so?
incidentally, nature is also the reason why we need medicines to heal us. If it weren’t for nature, there’d be no common cold, no smallpox, no ebola, no HIV, no swine flu, no Lyme’s disease…

@Fyrius new medcines are continually being discovered, the way to find new molecules is through looking at biological mechanisms, moden medicine is a product of nature, the original chemicals originate from bacteria, plants and even within more coplex species, to make a modern medicine economically viable it is beneficial to find a synthetic way to produce the chemical, it is not done the other way round. Brand new medicines such as anticancer treatments like Apratoxins, Coibamide A and Yondelis all originate from chemicals found in the marine environment, look up the company PharmaMar, it focuses exploring the marine environment to sustainably create and produce novel medicines. we cant just make these chemicals out of thin air.
by studying how certain species combat specific problems we can use these mechanisms to treat our problems.
If it wasnt for nature we wouldnt have cures. we wouldnt be able to produce antibiotics and we wouldnt be able to produce the novel proteosome inhibitor medcines which are hugely increasing cancer survival rates today.
what are you on about that medcine is not a product of nature, of course it is!

The real question is, of course, not whether we should preserve all nature or no nature at all, but how much of nature we ought to preserve, and what parts.
Medicine has worked hard to eliminate several deadly plagues, and I’m also happy to live in a place where there are more supermarkets than hungry wolves. We’ve already adapted much of nature to suit our needs, and that’s good.

But there are important thing the natural systems of the world do that we can’t do better yet, and so we do need to keep everything intact that makes those things possible. The atmosphere blocking out harmful radiation is one such thing, which is why we need forests.

@bongo
All right, point taken.

Tinkering with nature can and has had disastrous consequences for the viability of our ecosystem. Add to that all the unintended (or not cared about) consequences of pouring chemicals into our soil, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans.

It amazes me that people don’t see themselves as being part of the ecosystem, like we are somehow outside or above it. We only have one planet and we had better start taking care of it if we want to remain a viable species. We especially have the duty to as we have the brain capacity to think beyond ourselves, or most of us do anyway. We can think, plan and implement unlike any other animal on earth. We need to use those traits for the betterment of the planet.

@Fyrius Many medicines are derived from nature.

Excuse the non-chronological reply order.

@partyparty
Indeed. @bongo already pointed this out.

@bongo
“There is quite a few reasons for which humans should try and preserve species, by maintaining a high level of genetic diversity this will obviously allow for an increased liklihood that a certain animal or plant will become resistant to certain diseases and subsequently be useful in medical advances for humans. It is in our own interest to maintain this level of genetic diversity.”
Ah, but extinction is the motor of evolution. If we hope for animals to develop resistance to diseases which we can then copy from them, we can’t afford to protect them from natural selection, can we?

I think a distinction we should be making is between preserving a species and not personally driving it to extinction. Nature is constantly changing. To protect life forms against (non-human-driven) extinction would be to halt the dynamics of life. That would be unnatural all the same, on par with putting animals in a zoo.
Fun fact: an estimated 99.9% of all life forms that have ever lived are now extinct. For most of those, it wasn’t our fault.

I don’t think we’ll have to worry about a decrease in genetic diversity through animals dying out. As long as there remains an emptied niche, new life forms will adapt to fill it, right?

I think this is a general point that ought to be noted, if I may say so myself, lest we oversimplify the decisions humankind has to make. I think we shouldn’t be thinking of this in terms of preserving or not preserving nature, but rather in terms of interfering or not interfering with nature.
This may be a matter of semantics or a genuine difference. Either way I think it deserves to be made explicit.

I have said this many, many times “man is his own worst enemy”.

Nature provides us with the beauty that surrounds us. it may be animals, it may be flowers.

Eventually, man will destroy mother nature and himself.

@john65pennington Sad, but true, I think you are totally correct.

We’ll see about that.

@Fyrius I just wrote a very long answer and my computer crashed GRRR
but as I said before that answer linked into a thread from a few weeks ago, it can be found here

Human activities are effecting the natural flow of evolution though farming/ fishing/ hunting/ building pretty much anything we do.
By conserving species we are cutting the losses we cause. species go extinct on a daily basis, obviously we cant always prevent a species going extinct in the wild but there are methods we can do to slow our effects on nature. We are interfering with nature whether we like it or not both directly and indirectly through pollution, climate change and creating changes in the natural balance of things.
Yes of course extinction is a method of evolution but its not natual evolution if the species is wiped out purely by human induced factors.
Yes if we wiped out everything in the oceans sooner or later something would grow to replace it. Take our effects on coral reefs for an example. wiping out the hugely diverse coral reef areas have given rise to macroalgae dominated ecosystems, these systems are dominated by a single species. this leaves the systems open to disease and natural extinction. biodiversity is a way to ensure that if one species if wiped out the natural balance of things isnt too greatly effected. a small change in an area of low biodiversity will have massive overall detramental effects as there wont be things surviving when that single speices is wiped out naturally.
Another example is saving birds from an oil tanker disaster: the oil would not have been there is it wasnt for the humans and the birds would not be competing for food such as fish if it wasnt for humans: two massive effects restricting their populations, is it wrong to try and correct some of the mistakes caused by humans. Our knowledge would allow us to distroy all life on earth many times over. without trying to conserve what we have how will the earth sustain higher life forms. do you really want the world to end up dominated by few resistant species and bacteria and viruses? no- humans would not be able to exist then.

Sorry to only be able to give marine references and case studies here, I am studying Marine Biology at university and have therefore only studied marine examples of ecosystems and how a tiny effect can ripple extremely far up the food chain, I have also studies the pros and cons of human induced extinction and conservation and I feel that our knowlege and our ability to destroy a species should be matched in our ability to save that species.

When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.
~ Cree Prophecy ~

There’s a perfect balance here. Those that disrupt the balance will be “punished”. It’s just part of the balance. :)

@bongo
You make some good points. Non-interference seems hard to pull off for a species as influential as us. And I think you’ve given sensible reasons why undoing our unintentional interference as well as we can would be a good idea, worth a decent budget. So that natural selection can take care of the extinction business again.

Yes, nature is worth preserving and it is important that we do just that.

Explain to me this: WHY do humans have the right to do whatever they want, regardless of the well-being of other organisms? What makes us two-legged furless freaks so special?

@Draconess25 – Because wild animals have the right to do whatever they want regardless or the well-being of other organisms maybe? Its when people have pets that animals can not do whatever they want.
Im not saying that everyone should go round killing stuff but everything and everyone has the right to free choice. yes humans take away that right of some people and some animals, but animals will also do that to other species: monkeys will drive different species of monkeys out of their area / lions dont care which antelope they eat.
Its natural to want to put yourself first over other species and even over other individuals of the same species.
there is nothing making us so special other than our understanding of our actions. some humans dont understand the influence of their own actions, does that make them more evil than another animal just trying to survive?
Our knowledge of biological systems is what puts us above other species, we can manipulate how animals look and even how they behave through selective breeding. is this wrong? to selectively breed animals for our own pleasure? If you think it is I sincerely hope you have no pets and have never eaten meat.
Humans have to interfere with nature, the sheer scale of our society it would be impossible not to.

@bongo I have no pets, & I only eat organic meat. I’m not going to bother with this, since I hate humanity for reasons I won’t waste the time explaining to you. If humans actually tried living alongside nature, we’d be better off. We’ll end up destroying ourselves in the end. Not that I care.

nature is awesome….and needs to be saved in order to save ourselves.

@Draconess25 If you hate humanity and want to live alongside nature why are you on an electricity guzzling computer, eating farmed meat (selectively bred and managed by man – organic only means that the crops they are fed on havent had chemical fertilizer or pesticide) and living in a house made of bricks with electicity? surely you are just as bad as everyone else? the fact that your meat is organic doesnt make much difference in the great scheme of things. If you really believe in what you are saying why wear clothes? why use heating/air con, have you ever been in a car or bus or train or worse, an aeroplane? im sure you will have to some of them. its not fair on people to go round blaming the rest of humanity for everything. Im sure there is more that you can do. Im not saying I am perfect, not by a very long shot: I eat meat, I use public transport and when I can afford it, I will have a car. Like I say, I’m not perfect – but I dont pretend to be. Its completely natural to want to do whatever you want, surely thats the whole point in it?

@bongo Yes, but if it wasn’t for the few people I care about, I’d send myself back into the Earth. I live for their happiness. This body is merely a vessel in which to do that. As soon as they’re gone, so am I.

Bit of a late reply here.

@Draconess25
What makes humankind special is that we can, and they can’t.
Does that sound unfair? You know every other animal out there would do the exact same thing if it were in their power, if not something worse. This is not a situation where we’re the only ones who misbehave. In fact, the fact that we ever act responsibly at all is already more than you could expect of any other animal.
The fact that wild animals never make much of a mess of the world is not because they’re noble, just because they’re incompetent. Because FSM knows it’s not for lack of trying.
A case in point is the sea urchins @bongo mentioned, making a mess of the kelp forests the moment the sea otters are gone.
Just sayin’.

You’re right, of course, we’re not as responsible as we ought to be, ideally. But we’re certainly not an exceptionally selfish species, on the contrary.

It bothers me that anyone would say no to that question.

I doesn’t really matter what we want or don’t want. Nature will maintain it’s own balance – where there are enough resources (water, oxygen, and soil nutrients) plants and animals will grow, and where there aren’t, they won’t. Nature doesn’t care.

Nature, the planet will recover, in some way, and eventually thrive, in some way, after we are gone, most likely due to our own behaviors and activities. Perhaps the real question is are we worth preserving?

In the end it comes down to what kind of world we want to live in. If people think a lawn and garden is a suitable replacement for nature then that is what we are going to end up with.

The argument that plants and animals have rights sounds noble, but the question comes up as to why this should be, and the answer is that people feel this way because they place value on living things. In the end it is our values that count. As to the argument about the medicinal value of plants, I do not see people being willing to change their lifestyle in order to be able to be able to cure more diseases.

One thing that surprises me is that fundamentalists are not up in arms over the extinction of species. They believe that God created everything just for man and since they do not believe in evolution, there will never be any other species. Every time we force one to go extinct it is like saying to God, “Thanks for the gesture, but you were wrong. We really do not need that one.”

@LostInParadise
I was thinking yesterday that most save-the-[insert species here] activists probably do subconsciously have a view of nature as a static, non-evolutionary system; as if whales and koalas and pandas and rainforests have always existed as part of the beautiful harmony of nature, and any species going extinct is an irreplaceable loss that must be the fault of those greedy human bastards with their bulldozers and their chainsaws.

I’m not very surprised the fundamentalists aren’t worried about extinction, though. In general they don’t seem the sort of people that notices implications and cares about being consistent.

@Fyrius The problem is that as long as humans have such dominant control, it is hard to see how anything else will be able to evolve. Front lawns and cornfields shut out the life that could evolve into anything else. And any animals that do evolve will have to adjust to life on our terms. They will either be like dogs that are our playthings or rats, raccoons and seagulls that are able to live off of our scraps.

We need functioning ecosystems and food chains to sustain 6.8 billion people. Is every human life worth saving? Yes it is.

How much of a functioning ecosystem do we really need?. In the U.S., nearly all forests have been destroyed, but we are functioning without them. If our agriculture plants do not create a sufficient amount of oxygen, we can just genetically modify them so that they do.

Don’t forget the oceans. And don’t forget that a significant part of our oxygen comes from plants in the oceans. ‘Just genetically modify’ is far more complex as it may seem. Nature doesn’t work that way. We can’t just push a button here and another one there.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. We live in nature not nature living in us. Most of what humans use and need to stay alive comes from nature. We may not see all the good all these different animals do but they are there in balance for a reason. Maybe they keep other animals in check from over running the food source or damaging the landscape, which should be important if mankind wants to live on the hill out near the forest. Just think of what we would lose if we lose all the bees? What would happen if all the Earthworms died? I would not want to find out. Nature is the yacht we float in, We jack nature up I can imagine things will get very ugly around here.

We have already seriously altered nature. Anthropocene era I do not know how much further we can go before there are serious consequences, but I imagine that most of the change is going to be around for as long as our species exists, unless there is a major change in attitude. I am hoping that at some point it will be apparent how much uglier the man made world will is than the natural one. I am not holding my breath.

We won’t last any longer than nature does. If we destroy it, we will only be destroying ourselves.