The very notion of protecting "endangered" species goes against nature. If they can not adapt and evolve to the world they live in then they no longer are fit for survival. Look at Pandas, they absolutely refuse to -blam!- and repopulate. Why should we bother trying to help a species that doesn't care about themselves?
-
DID SOMEBODY SAY NATUUUUR!?
-
If we don't "save" them, then the ecological environment may be affected. Not all animals are equipped to consume everything.
-
Endangered species are most likely endangered due to humans and all animals in an environment (except ones introduced by humans) play an important role in the ecosystem
-
the red panda is so badass that's why
-
There's a lot of ignorance in your post friend, that or troll bait. Either way, you are misinformed.
-
But... They're so adorable ;_;
-
So you're saying the Traveler should have just let us die? Or helped by falling on the City?
-
animals "adapting" to us hunting them would probably result in something like Avatar...
-
if we -blam!-ed the species over then we have a duty to help it back on its feet. if they're in a position like Pandas are then i really see no reason why we shouldn't let nature take its course.
-
Yeah... no.
-
The thing is most of them are endangered because of us. Polar Bears are losing ice and are drowning cause of us. Tigers are getting hunted down because of us. Your idea of if the animals can not adapt then they are not fit is true. But it's also true that we as humans could wipe them out regardless. I think it's far for them to at least get killed off on an even playing field until they evolve enough to the point where they can stand a chance against humans.
-
Bu....but tigers and rhinos contribute so much to society, man! [spoiler]lolnotheydon't[/spoiler]
-
and then there was [url=https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=479765128772851&set=a.119791638103537.28779.117905868292114&type=1]this[/url].. o_o'
-
Evolution is coming. The sharks will adapt very soon.
-
Why not?
-
To maintain a certain grade of biodiversity. Yes, species die out eventually, but the current rate of animal extinction is relatively high thanks to human encroachment and agricultural monocultures that have replaced regional varieties. Do you want to live in a world that only has humans, cats, dogs, cows and pigeons?
-
Because tigers can totally adapt to the guns the hunters are using in a space of a little over a hundred years right?
-
Because we humans are the ones chasing them out of existence, you butthole
-
Because we are responsible for them being endangered
-
Many people have already stated valid reasons. Preservation OP, preservation. You'll miss something once it's gone.
-
Because when you eliminate an animal from its ecosystem, it throws everything off. Derp.
-
gifs man!
-
It's because in many cases of endangered species, we are to blame. If they became endangered naturally, you'd be right to not intervene and let them die out. However, for Polar bears, whales, white tigers, rhinos, elephants and countless other animals, we caused their demise in many ways (global warming, hunting for delicacies, skins or ivory) We're responsible for nearly killing them off, so we should be responsible for at least keeping the remaining ones alive.
-
The rate at which we are eliminating these endangered species is too fast for them to adapt. Adaptation and evolution is a long process, a process which is not suited for global warming, deforestation or poaching. We as a species, have a responsibility to intervene, considering we started this all.
-
Because we have the ability to preserve them.
-
If they became endangered on their own then I don't care. If it's because of humans, then tell those humans to leave the species alone.... it doesn't even matter they will do w/e they want anyway.