On: Malaysia's last known Sumatran rhino dies

[refurb]

But if you’re trying to limit the impact of humans, by saving a species that would naturally go extinct, you’re interfering with nature.

[csallen → refurb]

Limiting the impact of humans is a means, not an end.

[refurb → csallen]

So what’s the end goal? Save every possible species despite them not being viable?

[csallen → refurb]

Sure something like that, although I'd say it's to save every species that's practical to save rather than merely possible. Whether or not they're "viable" seems irrelevant.

[refurb → csallen]

Why? What’s the rationale?

If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”?

[csallen → refurb]

I don't think it's purely rational. It's probably the case that loss aversion[0] or some combination of psychological phenomena play a huge role. But I suppose the rational component is: If it's practical to save a species, and that species may provide some useful knowledge or inspiration in the future, why not save it?

> If more species is best, should we bread or genetically engineer new ones? Is that “better”?

I get what you're saying, but you have to draw the line somewhere. For example, if more money is better, why not work 3 jobs?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion