Argument: Protecting endangered species can harm human communities

Protecting endangered species can harm humans: Protecting endangered species by definition means restricting activity that humans would otherwise want to do, be it by turning woodland into farmland, turning meadows into housing developments, or by preventing us from eliminating 'pest' species which kill livestock or damage crops. For example, the reintroduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park has increased once more the risk to livestock in the region and caused economic harms to ranchers there. [1] Some of these species may even pose a threat to human lives, which may have been why they were hunted to extinction in the first place. In any case, less agricultural land and less land for housing can only mean higher food and housing costs (due to their decreased supplies in the face of a rising human population) for people, which has a detrimental impact upon human life.

[1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003. http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/31/shoot-shovel-and-shut-up

Candidate 1: "This is argument for the reform of these laws, not against the laws themselves. Laws could also be introduced, for example, to require loggers to allow a certain percentage of their trees to reach the appropriate age for woodpecker nesting, or better review panels created to consider removing the 'endangered' label when it is no longer appropriate. These laws can shift as we see incentives shifting in order to ensure that good behaviour in incentivized overall."
Candidate 2: "Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment."
Candidate 3: "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole."
Candidate 4: "The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way.

[1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4724028.stm"
Candidate 5: "Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher."
Candidate 6: "This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species.

[1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002. http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm"
Candidate 7: "By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present."
Candidate 8: "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering.

[1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4724028.stm"

These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.
