Jennifer Zwick's Photography: The Reader

It is sad that such a creature may be doomed as we all are. We will have to face reality and if we wish, allot any money to those programs that will actually have an impact.

Why is it endangered? Would the species die if we stopped killing it, or will it die off because it is unable to adapt. I would argue if a species is unable to fend for itself against natural forces (such as the forces pushing cheetahs to extinction), then it should be allowed to die off, but we should save a sample of it's population's DNA. If however the species is dieing off because we hunt it for food, then the species could still be saved by changing our diet.

Every species will go extinct, it's just a matter of timeframe. So should we stop the conservation movement altogether?

"Should we let some endangered species die?"

Yes, we should.

sm.

The right whale is endangered now because of human hunting habits in the past. And not because of food as much as for their oil and ambergris. "Natural selection" is not a valid reason, because humans have tipped the scales by changing the circumstances. And adaptations in most animals take eons, not a couple hundred years.

I think we should save them if we can, because they are a unique and incredible animal. Isn't that enough reason?

I think when there are species that come in a few varieties with subtle differences, and one of those varieties starts to struggle, then YES.

Taken from Wikipedia:
400 to 450 North Atlantic Right Whales live in the North Atlantic;
50-100 North Pacific Right Whales live in the eastern North Pacific and perhaps 200-300 more in the Sea of Okhotsk;
12,000 Southern Right Whales are spread throughout the southern part of the Southern Hemisphere;
9,000–10,000 Bowhead Whales (Aka Greenland Right Whale) are distributed entirely in the Arctic Ocean and sub-polar seas.

There will still be Right whales out there, if the North Atlantic Right Whales disapear. Save their genetic information as best we can, and salute them goodbye, IMO.

We all have to agree that it takes massive amounts og resources to study and preserve the habitats of animals. If a species dies out because we can't take care of it then so be it. If any are left over after we straighten our own problems I'll give them a hand.

If a species is going due to human meddling – direct, we're killing these things when we shouldn't – then we must make amends by trying to save them.

If a species is going extinct naturally, then we should let it die out – as attempting to stave off extinction of such a thing is as damaging to the natural order of things as killing off a species that is not dying out naturally.

I think that if we went back and imposed the policies and ideals we use today we would be doomed to remain one cell organisms floating in the ocean. The first time someone multiplied into a two cell organism all hell would break loose.

@ gdw3
Adaption tends to take little time as it is a change in populations actions. ( that is: Colonialist adapted to the new england climate in a generation, by changing their actions)

Evolution takes generations and depends on the speed at which a species generates new generations. So ecoli will evolve faster than a Right Whale.

@drake123
I don't think it's possible to say how we would have turned out if we imposed current policies and ideals on our past selves. One could argue if we had the feelings toward the whale as we do now we wouldn't have had appropriate lubrication for motors that drove the industrial revolution. But one could also argue that human are highly inventive and they would have developed other lubrication.

The real question: shouldn't we deny the unreasonable energy flow and posessions that the angry, irrational unwashed masses demand?

Conservation is the ultimate conservatism.