Endangered Species and Morality

Randal O'TooleTwo weeks ago, the Fish&  Wildlife Service proposed to declare23 endangered species, including theivory ‐​billed woodpecker, to be extinct. Since the woodpecker had been sighted as recently as 2006 and many hold out hope that it survives, the agency ’s proposal seems to be more of an attempt to gain support (and funding) for its programs.The bald eagle was in danger of extinction in 1973, when the Endangered Species Act was passed, and now has healthy populations in 49 states. Yet the Endangered Species Act probably was not the primary reason for its recovery.Photo by Andy Morflew.This makes it pertinent to ask if the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is really working. Is it saving species? Are the benefits worth the costs? Is there a  better way of saving species? Is saving species all that important anyway?My own opinion is that saving rare species and their habitat is the most important environmental problem we face, even more important than the impact of global climate change on humans (which is likely to besmall though it may put more species in danger of extinction). But my belief is based on a  moral value: with the exception of species that pose grave dangers to humans (such as smallpox or polio), we shouldn’t have the moral right to make species go extinct. To paraphrase former National Park Service directorNewton Drury, we are not so rich we canafford to extirpate species nor so poor that we have to.Not everyone may share this moral v...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs