Arguments for conservation

Ignorance Argument

“Although we might not now know what use a particular endangered species might be to us, allowing it to go extinct forever closes off the possibility of discovering and exploiting a future use”

● Rational decisions require rational assumptions. A rational decision cannot come from ignorance. Sober puts it bluntly with the phrase “Out of nothing, nothing comes”

● Sober uses an example as well:

o Suppose you know there is a small probability that the next time you fly on an airplane, it will crash. Given this knowledge, it would seem illogical to then take a flight. However, “we are prepared to accept a small chance of a great disaster in return for the high probability of a rather modest benefit.”

Sober extends this argument to species via an anthropocentric, utilitarian line of reasoning.

Slippery Slope Argument

● “Each extinction impoverishes the biosphere”

● If each species matters only a small amount, then people would ignore each extinction and there would then be “wholesale” extinctions.

● A slippery slope does not tell us whether we are at the beginning, middle, or near the precipice of disaster. If each individual species grows more important as extinctions increase, “then the reduction in diversity… should be all we need to justify species preservation.”

Appeal to what is natural

● Everything that is natural must be preserved.

● There is a difference between the wild and domesticated

● “If we are part of nature, then everything we do is part of nature”

● Natural and normal go hand in hand, and the concept of normal is also often meant to be usual or desirable. However, there is a double standard when it comes to the environment. Whatever is usual or desirable for humans is not seen to be natural.[1]

Environmentalist Argument

Sober’s Counter

This wouldn’t be difficult at all for me to turn this into a more conventional format if you want, but I thought this would suit the website format a bit better.