Cute and Cuddly
Strong Language Advisory
It seems obvious that if we are going to revive the economy, we are going to have to reevaluate how we regulate it. We are going to have to go through every line in the Federal Register and determine whether each regulation and mandate makes sense based upon a realistic cost/benefit analysis. We need to have a public discussion and be honest with ourselves whn weighing the economic reward against the economic penalties of the regulations that are on the books now and any that are proposejd for the future. But, as in all things, the discussion must be based on evidence and fact and not on emotion. For example, just because someone says that a proposed law is "good" for the environment, we need to ask whether this is really so. And if so, what is the cost in human terms if that regulation is enacted. Might we not be throwing the baby away with the bathwater?
A classic example of this is the Endangered Species Act. As presented to the American people, this was a law that was supposed to save our warm and cuddlly friends in the animal kingdom. In the public relations campaign to get the act passed by Congress, the proponents claimed that the new law was necessary in order to save our national symbol the bald eagle. With the media-Matrix working overdrive on environmentalist propaganda, opponents who argued that the law was much too broad in scope were easily portrayed as the kind of cretins who would happily join their buddies in evil big business and dance on the grave of the last extinct bald eagle . Naturally, opposition melted and the law was enacted.
In terms of preventing the extinction of our national symbol, the Endangered Species act has been a rousing success. The bald eagle has been saved, at least until Obama gets all the bird killing windmills he lusts after:
A classic example of this is the Endangered Species Act. As presented to the American people, this was a law that was supposed to save our warm and cuddlly friends in the animal kingdom. In the public relations campaign to get the act passed by Congress, the proponents claimed that the new law was necessary in order to save our national symbol the bald eagle. With the media-Matrix working overdrive on environmentalist propaganda, opponents who argued that the law was much too broad in scope were easily portrayed as the kind of cretins who would happily join their buddies in evil big business and dance on the grave of the last extinct bald eagle . Naturally, opposition melted and the law was enacted.
In terms of preventing the extinction of our national symbol, the Endangered Species act has been a rousing success. The bald eagle has been saved, at least until Obama gets all the bird killing windmills he lusts after:
I mean, what's the extinction of the golden eagle compared to a few extra gigawatts of "clean" energy that might somehow save the planet, right? But, that's a different story for another chapter.
2=====================================================================================================
The problem with saving our buddy the bald eagle is that the actual fine print of the Endangered Species Act does not make any distinction between say a lovable manatee and a particular species of ugly cockroach. All species that are endangered must be protected. Does that actually make sense? Should we try to save endangered species on an individual and case by case basis or give blanket protection to them all regardless of circumstance? That's the real debate. Not whether one party loves animals and nature and the other party wants to murder Bambi and all her friends. To hear progressives portray those of us who believe that we should use some common sense in determining what species to protect, we are Godzilla:
2=====================================================================================================
The problem with saving our buddy the bald eagle is that the actual fine print of the Endangered Species Act does not make any distinction between say a lovable manatee and a particular species of ugly cockroach. All species that are endangered must be protected. Does that actually make sense? Should we try to save endangered species on an individual and case by case basis or give blanket protection to them all regardless of circumstance? That's the real debate. Not whether one party loves animals and nature and the other party wants to murder Bambi and all her friends. To hear progressives portray those of us who believe that we should use some common sense in determining what species to protect, we are Godzilla:
Partisan spin aside, the problem with the Endangered Species Act isn't Bambi, but thousands of other protected species among which are the rock gnome
lichen, the dwarf wedgemussel, the Comal Springs dryopid beetle and 1,300 species of animals, fish, and plants that
have been designated either "endangered" or
"threatened." We have created a law so rigid and all
encompassing that the other day a father of six was arrested for shooting a
grizzly bear that had wandered into his backyard:
Surely, no jury in Idaho is going to send this guy to prison for killing the grizzly just as surely we all recognize that it is not good to slaughter such creatures indiscriminately. After all, no one wants to see "Gentle Ben" die or become extinct. Bears can be so cute and cuddly. Perhaps, not in your backyard with your kids and the pigs that feed your family around, but from a nice safe distance.
3=====================================================================================================
Now, a nice adorable huggable bear is one thing, but what about a lizard? Should the government shut down the west Texas oil industry and put thousands of people out of work and pay even more money to fill your tank in order to save this little guy?
3=====================================================================================================
Now, a nice adorable huggable bear is one thing, but what about a lizard? Should the government shut down the west Texas oil industry and put thousands of people out of work and pay even more money to fill your tank in order to save this little guy?
If you'll pardon me for making a snide comment here about the bias of ABC's network news team in order to make a point about the "emotionalization" of the debate, I'd like to note the inflection in Cynthia McFadden's voice as she says that "some claim" the endangered species act destroys industries and then goes on to describe the lizard as "cute". Ms. McFadden, for the record, the destruction of the timber industry to save the spotted owl in Oregon isn't a claim, it's an absolute fact and whether the lizard is cute or not has no relevance in the discussion over whether to save it. Or does it? You never know with lefties. I was amazed for years about the whole effort to push for the creation of dolphin safe tuna nets. According to the logic of the proponents of the dolphin protecting nets, it was perfectly ok to kill tuna by the thousands, but God forbid you kill even one cute, cuddly dolphin. Think about that kind of logic. If it's cute, we'll save it. If its not and tastes good, kill away, kill away! Pass the tuna sandwich, please!
In the above video, I was also struck by the total ignorance of Jonathan Karl when he makes a big deal about the fact that the Texas land commissioner carries a gun in his left cowboy boot. Now I don't know Mr. Karl personally, but it seems to me that while people don't normally carry guns on their person where he lives with his elite media buddies in the Northeast, he should still have the basic intelligence to realize that anyone with any common sense at all isn't going to escort him out into the desert of west Texas without one. After all, the likelihood is very high that you might need it in order to shoot one of the hordes of poisonous snakes that prowl the area and feed off of creatures like our cute little lizard friend. In fairness to Mr. Karl, perhaps knew this, but if he did, why make such a big deal about the gun in the cowboy boot bit at all except to portray the land commissioner as some kind of hick marine gun nut? Just asking...
Be that as it may, notice in the report that the Federal researcher who is working on determining whether the lizard will be classified as endangered says that there will be zero cost/benefit analysis done. The determination of whether to ban oil drilling in West Texas would only be made based on the science as it relates to the lizard. In other words, the hell with five hundred million barrels of oil if these bureaucrats determine that there is even a remote chance that the lizard could become extinct. I don't know about you, but I am not willing to tell little Maria that her daddy who works on one of those oil rigs doesn't have a job anymore and can't feed the family because some scientists "think" that those wells are killing a lizard. But that's me.
Fortunately, we have been spared from having that little talk with Maria. Apparently, enough pressure was put on the Crooks and Thieves in Washington and they relented for now. Environmentalists were not pleased:
In the above video, I was also struck by the total ignorance of Jonathan Karl when he makes a big deal about the fact that the Texas land commissioner carries a gun in his left cowboy boot. Now I don't know Mr. Karl personally, but it seems to me that while people don't normally carry guns on their person where he lives with his elite media buddies in the Northeast, he should still have the basic intelligence to realize that anyone with any common sense at all isn't going to escort him out into the desert of west Texas without one. After all, the likelihood is very high that you might need it in order to shoot one of the hordes of poisonous snakes that prowl the area and feed off of creatures like our cute little lizard friend. In fairness to Mr. Karl, perhaps knew this, but if he did, why make such a big deal about the gun in the cowboy boot bit at all except to portray the land commissioner as some kind of hick marine gun nut? Just asking...
Be that as it may, notice in the report that the Federal researcher who is working on determining whether the lizard will be classified as endangered says that there will be zero cost/benefit analysis done. The determination of whether to ban oil drilling in West Texas would only be made based on the science as it relates to the lizard. In other words, the hell with five hundred million barrels of oil if these bureaucrats determine that there is even a remote chance that the lizard could become extinct. I don't know about you, but I am not willing to tell little Maria that her daddy who works on one of those oil rigs doesn't have a job anymore and can't feed the family because some scientists "think" that those wells are killing a lizard. But that's me.
Fortunately, we have been spared from having that little talk with Maria. Apparently, enough pressure was put on the Crooks and Thieves in Washington and they relented for now. Environmentalists were not pleased:
4=====================================================================================================
The Texas oil industry might have been spared, but the fact that it was endangered at all tells you all you need to know about how much power over our lives and destiny we have surrendered to bureaucrats and lizards. Perhaps you think the lizard is as cute as Cynthia McFadden does and should have been saved for that reason alone or perhaps you just plain hate oil companies and fossil fuels in general, but are either of those things rational reasons for destroying jobs at a time like this? Many environmentalists say that it is. They say no stone should be left unturned in order to save this little fellow:
The Texas oil industry might have been spared, but the fact that it was endangered at all tells you all you need to know about how much power over our lives and destiny we have surrendered to bureaucrats and lizards. Perhaps you think the lizard is as cute as Cynthia McFadden does and should have been saved for that reason alone or perhaps you just plain hate oil companies and fossil fuels in general, but are either of those things rational reasons for destroying jobs at a time like this? Many environmentalists say that it is. They say no stone should be left unturned in order to save this little fellow:
Cute little bugger isn't he? Sure, he is. He is also responsible for destroying one of the most fertile and productive farming regions in the country. To save this fish, everyone in the country is paying more for fruits and vegetables and thousands upon thousands of people have had their lives torn apart:
What I find truly amazing here is that the rationale according to the environmental "expert" is that damage to the delta ecosystem could threaten the drinking water of 23 million people. While this might be conceivably true if the ecosystem as a whole were destroyed, this "expert" offers no credible evidence that the extinction of this particular tiny fish is going to cause that to happen.
Losing that much drinking water would be an absolute catastrophe for California. So, I was curious to find out whether that was an actual possibility and I went onto the internet to do some research. What I found was interesting and illuminating. To be sure, there are huge problems occurring in this ecosystem as a result of mankind's diversion of water in order to feed himself including the introduction of new plant life that clog the waterways, new species of predator fish that are crowding out young Salmon and certain shellfish that are having an adverse effect on the population of phytoplankton. However, this diversion of water has been going on for nearly fifty years and the ecosystem is not yet anywhere near being in danger of destruction. Whatever harm that can be done to the watershed has already been done. The horse, so to speak, has already left the barn. This has resulted in evolutionary change perhaps, but not destruction.
It is important to note that these kinds of changes in local ecosystems have been occurring everywhere in human history when dams are built or humans divert water for use in agriculture. Once the ancient Egyptians figured out how to use the Nile River to irrigate their crops, the ecosystem in that area was changed forever. I am absolutely positive that many types of fish, insects and mammals became extinct as a result of the rise of the Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations. No doubt this has also been true of every single civilization that succeeded them. Virtually nowhere in Europe or New England or anywhere humans congregate in numbers has the same ecosystem it did before man chopped down entire forests and radically changed his relationship with his environment when he learned to farm. Indeed it was the transcendent nature of the new agrarian economy that has allowed humans to increase so exponentially in numbers that threatens so many different species. Is the answer to this problem that we should go back to being hunter gatherers? I think not.
To be clear, in when it comes to species extinction, I am not proposing that we shouldn't be good stewards of the earth. We should respect every one of God's creatures. But, in this case, to shoot ourselves in the foot as a nation and turn the most fertile and productive agricultural land in the country into a dust bowl to save a tiny fish seems just a tad excessive to me. Have you been to the grocery store and checked the price of fruit and vegetables lately?
5=====================================================================================================
For me, the ultimate example of the sheer madness of the blind application of the endangered species act concerns our friend the cute and loveable spotted owl:
Losing that much drinking water would be an absolute catastrophe for California. So, I was curious to find out whether that was an actual possibility and I went onto the internet to do some research. What I found was interesting and illuminating. To be sure, there are huge problems occurring in this ecosystem as a result of mankind's diversion of water in order to feed himself including the introduction of new plant life that clog the waterways, new species of predator fish that are crowding out young Salmon and certain shellfish that are having an adverse effect on the population of phytoplankton. However, this diversion of water has been going on for nearly fifty years and the ecosystem is not yet anywhere near being in danger of destruction. Whatever harm that can be done to the watershed has already been done. The horse, so to speak, has already left the barn. This has resulted in evolutionary change perhaps, but not destruction.
It is important to note that these kinds of changes in local ecosystems have been occurring everywhere in human history when dams are built or humans divert water for use in agriculture. Once the ancient Egyptians figured out how to use the Nile River to irrigate their crops, the ecosystem in that area was changed forever. I am absolutely positive that many types of fish, insects and mammals became extinct as a result of the rise of the Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations. No doubt this has also been true of every single civilization that succeeded them. Virtually nowhere in Europe or New England or anywhere humans congregate in numbers has the same ecosystem it did before man chopped down entire forests and radically changed his relationship with his environment when he learned to farm. Indeed it was the transcendent nature of the new agrarian economy that has allowed humans to increase so exponentially in numbers that threatens so many different species. Is the answer to this problem that we should go back to being hunter gatherers? I think not.
To be clear, in when it comes to species extinction, I am not proposing that we shouldn't be good stewards of the earth. We should respect every one of God's creatures. But, in this case, to shoot ourselves in the foot as a nation and turn the most fertile and productive agricultural land in the country into a dust bowl to save a tiny fish seems just a tad excessive to me. Have you been to the grocery store and checked the price of fruit and vegetables lately?
5=====================================================================================================
For me, the ultimate example of the sheer madness of the blind application of the endangered species act concerns our friend the cute and loveable spotted owl:
This is what we've come to in our blind adherence to folowing policies of ideological purity over a common sense approach. We are now going to shoot some owls to save other more cuddly owls. Great. Back in the eighties and nineties when the debate over the spotted owl was raging, all we ever saw were pictures of how adorable the spotted owl was. After the owl was protected and their little battle won, you never saw the media go back and interview the families whose lives were destroyed to protect the cute predator. Nor have they ever mentioned that we now know that those lives were ruined for nothing. From the government, the environmental activists and their willing stenographers in the media not a peep. Not even an oops, our bad.
If the spotted owl controversy tells us anything, it is that when man gets involved in trying to "control" nature he usually bungles the operation. Nature is much too complex to control This is evident in Oregon where the government is trying to save the salmon. In order to do that, it must kill cute and cuddly sea lions and beautiful birds:
If the spotted owl controversy tells us anything, it is that when man gets involved in trying to "control" nature he usually bungles the operation. Nature is much too complex to control This is evident in Oregon where the government is trying to save the salmon. In order to do that, it must kill cute and cuddly sea lions and beautiful birds:
Sure that makes sense. Kill cute sea lions and birds to save the salmon. Kill tuna, but save the dolphins. Yep, we've got this nature thing all figured out!
6=====================================================================================================
Unfortunately, these aren't the only instances where good intentions and blind ideology runs into the law of unintended consequences. It also provides an example of why it pays to be skeptical of relying on the scientific community and environmental activists to be the sole arbiters of regulatory policy. This is particularly true of scientists and activists who claim they've figured out something as complex as an ecosystem (or a climate for that matter):
6=====================================================================================================
Unfortunately, these aren't the only instances where good intentions and blind ideology runs into the law of unintended consequences. It also provides an example of why it pays to be skeptical of relying on the scientific community and environmental activists to be the sole arbiters of regulatory policy. This is particularly true of scientists and activists who claim they've figured out something as complex as an ecosystem (or a climate for that matter):
Despite what happened in Yellowstone in 1988, those in the environmental movement continued to believe that they were the good guys and the loggers were the evil meanies who just wanted to profit off of the poor trees. They were just trying to save them, don't ya know? By using the endangered species act among others, they got rid of the pernicious presence of the big bad private timber industry from the pristine and defenseless forest. The result was utterly predictable. Fires have grown larger and destroyed more acreage, property and trees than ever before in recorded memory:
7=====================================================================================================
Let's see, save the lizard by destroying the west Texas oil economy, save the delta smelt by destroying our most fertile farmland, save one species of owl by shooting another species of owl. Save the forest from the evil big timber industry by destroying the forest. Perhaps it is time to learn from our mistakes and apply a little more common sense and factual evidence before we act next time, eh? Perhaps we should remove the emotion engendered by the depiction of cuddly little owls and fake pictures of stranded polar bears from our discussions. It is time we dealt with these things from a rational and common sense approach.
It is also high time that the supposedly unbiased media told both sides of the debate. It would be just as instructive to spend as much time showing how government policy destroys jobs and families livelihoods as they spend showing how cute and endangered the affected animals are with misleading photos:
Let's see, save the lizard by destroying the west Texas oil economy, save the delta smelt by destroying our most fertile farmland, save one species of owl by shooting another species of owl. Save the forest from the evil big timber industry by destroying the forest. Perhaps it is time to learn from our mistakes and apply a little more common sense and factual evidence before we act next time, eh? Perhaps we should remove the emotion engendered by the depiction of cuddly little owls and fake pictures of stranded polar bears from our discussions. It is time we dealt with these things from a rational and common sense approach.
It is also high time that the supposedly unbiased media told both sides of the debate. It would be just as instructive to spend as much time showing how government policy destroys jobs and families livelihoods as they spend showing how cute and endangered the affected animals are with misleading photos:
Also, it might be instructive to show a little balance about all of the aspects of these animals other than their cuteness:
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the fact that Polar Bears can be very hazardous creatures makes them less of a victim of endangerment. I am merely pointing out that a one sided portrayal of them as cute, loveable, huggable little teddy bears is not quite an accurate depiction of them if one's purpose is to objectively evaluate correct and effective policy. The media should not be aiding and abetting the emotionalization of the issue.
8=====================================================================================================
Indeed, from a certain perspective, the lizard that threatened to destroy the west Texas oil industry and the delta smelt which threatens the survival of thousands of people who depend on farming and the millions who depend on affordable produce is indicative of the serious intellectual and moral issues we face as a people. Many on the left believe that animals should have equal rights with human beings:
8=====================================================================================================
Indeed, from a certain perspective, the lizard that threatened to destroy the west Texas oil industry and the delta smelt which threatens the survival of thousands of people who depend on farming and the millions who depend on affordable produce is indicative of the serious intellectual and moral issues we face as a people. Many on the left believe that animals should have equal rights with human beings:
These are the same people that are the biggest supporters of the Endangered Species Act and other government regulations that would put the welfare of plants and animals over the needs of human beings. On a purely spiritual and philosophical level I have sympathy with their argument. The knowing extinction of a species such as what we did in this country to the buffalo is emotionally and spiritually abhorrent. However, ridding the buffalo from the plains made it possible for much of that area to be farmed effectively. The wheat, corn and oats that those farms produced helped to allow America to become the bread basket of the world. Everywhere that man tries to farm the land in order to create enough food to survive, he is changing the ecosystem of the area forever. Yet, for humanity to continue to feed multi-billons of people, it needs to be done. We are left with a simple but unpleasant choice. The death of this fish and millions of species like it:
_
_
Or the deaths of these children:
9=====================================================================================================
_For thousands of years, the choice has been to feed the children at the expense of indigenous species. As our civilization has become more advanced and more knowledgeable about the harm we are doing to our fellow creatures, it is perfectly legitimate to have a debate over what our responsibility to nature is. However, if we are to continue blindly along with policies like the Endangered Species Act, we will eventually be condemning billions to starvation and death and, if carried to the extreme of the Declaration of Human Rights To Mother Nature, to a level of forced population control that is in direct contradiction to the very humanity that has made us desirous of protecting our fellow creatures in the first place. That is the road that leads to forced sterilizations and abortions and other forms of population control. Barack Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren actually proposed putting birth control agents into the drinking water for this very reason!
I remember back in the Eighties they had a LiveAid concert to help with the famine in Ethiopia and I got to thinking about the conflicting conclusions I got when I perceived the event's goals with my heart and with my mind. Of course, my heart was all for helping starving children. My dad used to caricature me as someone who was to the right of Atilla the Hun, but I don't know anyone who is so callous that they don't have sympathy for the plight of millions starving because of famine. On the other hand, my intellect which was heavilly shaped by my biologist mother began to queston the wisdom of sending in the food. The truth is that nature is designed to thin herds. When there is no longer enough food in the ecosystem to support its inhabitants, nature "thins" the herds until a balance between the numbers of a species and the food available is achieved. By sending in millions of tons of food, were we not interfering with natural forces? Were we not condemning generations of Ethiopians to lives of starvation and misery? For thousands of years until the age of Television, nature had its way because no one saw the faces of those starving children. They died unnoticed and unseen and either their descendents once again became in balance with their environment or they left for greener pastures. That's was the way of nature. So, by interfering were we actually helping them? In the end, I decided that maybe God created the Television so that we could help these children and once more show how human beings could transcend nature. But, I must tell you, I was not completely comfortable with that conclusion.
On a lighter note, here is someone who gets it:
_For thousands of years, the choice has been to feed the children at the expense of indigenous species. As our civilization has become more advanced and more knowledgeable about the harm we are doing to our fellow creatures, it is perfectly legitimate to have a debate over what our responsibility to nature is. However, if we are to continue blindly along with policies like the Endangered Species Act, we will eventually be condemning billions to starvation and death and, if carried to the extreme of the Declaration of Human Rights To Mother Nature, to a level of forced population control that is in direct contradiction to the very humanity that has made us desirous of protecting our fellow creatures in the first place. That is the road that leads to forced sterilizations and abortions and other forms of population control. Barack Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren actually proposed putting birth control agents into the drinking water for this very reason!
I remember back in the Eighties they had a LiveAid concert to help with the famine in Ethiopia and I got to thinking about the conflicting conclusions I got when I perceived the event's goals with my heart and with my mind. Of course, my heart was all for helping starving children. My dad used to caricature me as someone who was to the right of Atilla the Hun, but I don't know anyone who is so callous that they don't have sympathy for the plight of millions starving because of famine. On the other hand, my intellect which was heavilly shaped by my biologist mother began to queston the wisdom of sending in the food. The truth is that nature is designed to thin herds. When there is no longer enough food in the ecosystem to support its inhabitants, nature "thins" the herds until a balance between the numbers of a species and the food available is achieved. By sending in millions of tons of food, were we not interfering with natural forces? Were we not condemning generations of Ethiopians to lives of starvation and misery? For thousands of years until the age of Television, nature had its way because no one saw the faces of those starving children. They died unnoticed and unseen and either their descendents once again became in balance with their environment or they left for greener pastures. That's was the way of nature. So, by interfering were we actually helping them? In the end, I decided that maybe God created the Television so that we could help these children and once more show how human beings could transcend nature. But, I must tell you, I was not completely comfortable with that conclusion.
On a lighter note, here is someone who gets it:
_Strong Language Advisory
10====================================================================================================
_What I find ironic is that those who are most adamant about the need for science and reason to trump faith and religious dogma in discussions of policy are the ones who are actually acting in the opposite. Since humanity is also a part of nature and our species has survived and thrived through a genetic adaptation that allows us to manipulate our environment in order to enrich ourselves materially, we are no different than any other creature whose rise to dominance in the ecosystem meant the eventual extinction of other species In each period of evolutionary change, the new dominant species changed the entire ecosystem around them. Life on earth changed drastically and millions of species became extinct with the introduction of arthropods and then changed again with the rise of the fish, and again with the rise of the amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs and now is in the midst of another great change with the rise of the ultimate of mammals: humans. This is how we have theorized that evolution has always worked. This is science. Therefore the extinction of species that can no longer adapt and survive in a world dominated by humans are following the same natural path that the trilobites and the dodo bird tread before them. This is the natural and inevitable course of nature and to stand in its way is to stand opposed to nature, science and evolution.
However, man is the first being that has an understanding of how he is actually affecting his fellow creatures. He has a conscience. It bothers him to see other creatures suffer in a way that would be inconceivable to a Tyrannosaurus Rex. This understanding has created a moral dilemma which is an emotional, dare I say, even spiritual reaction having less to do with rational and empirical argument than it does with a "feeling" about what is right and wrong. What it is not is a reaction or a dilemma based on science. From a strictly scientific perspective, by destroying those creatures around us in order that our species flourish, we are acting in absolute accordance with our evolutionary impulse to adapt, survive and thrive. To deviate from that path for purposes of morality and conscience is a recognition that cold dispassionate science is not the ultimate authority on what is acceptable conduct as a species. That sounds a lot more like a question of God, emotion and morality than science to me. Just saying...
_What I find ironic is that those who are most adamant about the need for science and reason to trump faith and religious dogma in discussions of policy are the ones who are actually acting in the opposite. Since humanity is also a part of nature and our species has survived and thrived through a genetic adaptation that allows us to manipulate our environment in order to enrich ourselves materially, we are no different than any other creature whose rise to dominance in the ecosystem meant the eventual extinction of other species In each period of evolutionary change, the new dominant species changed the entire ecosystem around them. Life on earth changed drastically and millions of species became extinct with the introduction of arthropods and then changed again with the rise of the fish, and again with the rise of the amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs and now is in the midst of another great change with the rise of the ultimate of mammals: humans. This is how we have theorized that evolution has always worked. This is science. Therefore the extinction of species that can no longer adapt and survive in a world dominated by humans are following the same natural path that the trilobites and the dodo bird tread before them. This is the natural and inevitable course of nature and to stand in its way is to stand opposed to nature, science and evolution.
However, man is the first being that has an understanding of how he is actually affecting his fellow creatures. He has a conscience. It bothers him to see other creatures suffer in a way that would be inconceivable to a Tyrannosaurus Rex. This understanding has created a moral dilemma which is an emotional, dare I say, even spiritual reaction having less to do with rational and empirical argument than it does with a "feeling" about what is right and wrong. What it is not is a reaction or a dilemma based on science. From a strictly scientific perspective, by destroying those creatures around us in order that our species flourish, we are acting in absolute accordance with our evolutionary impulse to adapt, survive and thrive. To deviate from that path for purposes of morality and conscience is a recognition that cold dispassionate science is not the ultimate authority on what is acceptable conduct as a species. That sounds a lot more like a question of God, emotion and morality than science to me. Just saying...