[jbreckmckye]

I can think of two reasons to protect species: one practical, one moral.

The practical one is that humans rely on ecosystems being the way they are, and that unbalancing them disturbs our interests, particularly in agriculture. We also rely on a diverse plant ecosystem to discover and develop new medicines.

The second argument is more values-based: that ecosystems and animals have value in and of themselves, axiomatically. If you don't appreciate this argument perhaps you never will: it's not something that draws on more fundamental principles, it just is a principle itself. Similar are arguments about speciesism and the active right of sentient animals to survival: it's probably one of those things that can't be deconstructed into more basic, falsifiable arguments. I'd suggest the same applies to the claim that human progress is necessary and valuable - it doesn't seem provable, just an instinctual belief.

There might be a third argument: that protecting the environment helps economies optimise for longer term gains. One of the things holding back sustainability has been the relative cheapness of dirty alternatives - so restricting mining might encourage more creative means of manufacturing. And frankly, if all you're doing is mining cadmium for smartphone batteries, you may not be doing the human race much good to begin with.

[black_puppydog]

Extra points for the explanation of point two!

Personally I subscribe to the notion that animal life (just like human life, by the way) has an intrinsic value. On a related, yet more pragmatic level: even if you don't see the value in the plant/animal itself, you might find value in them in that they make life more pleasant/interesting. Personally at least, I'd much prefer living in grasslands over living on a parking lot, even if they both have fiber to the home...

[throwawaymath]

I disagree with your second point, but I upvoted your comment for the exceptional way you argued it. Saying that the argument from morality is axiomatic is a good way to put it - there is nothing falsifiable to decompose the argument into. Those who agree and those who disagree are separated by a gulf that cannot be traversed by logic.

[StavrosK]

There's another argument: For aesthetics. It's nice to have variety, we like diverse environments more than the alternative, and we want to preserve the beauty of the natural world as much as possible.

[ethbro]

Variety has a non-aesthetic value as well -- more complex ecosystems have greater resilience to shock (e.g. climate change or invasive species introduction).

A broader variety of species allows for the loss / decrease in a particular function to be more quickly replaced by a similar species. As opposed to a simpler, more limited ecological system, where there may only be a single species fulfilling a given role. A single species that might be highly vulnerable to a new toxin / predator / fungus / virus / different average temperature.

[another-one-off]

> that unbalancing them disturbs our interests

I've talked to farmers on trains, I've lived in cities, I've worked in mines. This doesn't reflect my experiences, we have shredded the natural environment to our benefit in all those places. Farms are a long way from a natural environment, the modern farming process is awash with chemicals and such. Lab grown meat is an exciting possibility. Our success as a species have come through striving to transcend the limits of nature.

Nearly all humans are urbanised. Urban environments are as far from natural ones as we can reasonably make it. There is almost no fauna larger than a dog, flora is controlled. When given the choice, as a mass, we choose to be as far from nature as possible and visit it for short and very controlled periods of time.

The moral aspect I suppose we shall agree to disagree.

Are you sure the cadmium isn't going to be used for solar power? Or that the 'creative means' that you would like to see won't benefit from it when the science comes in?

[siosonel]

"Farms are a long way from a natural environment, the modern farming process is awash with chemicals and such."

It seems you are viewing industrial, monoculture farming techniques as a justification for what humans should be able to get away with as far as land or resource use. It is not at all self-evident that such an approach works best. There is an opposite viewpoint that traditional, diverse crop farming could produce higher quality, higher nutrition output without using too much inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.

My point is that you seem to conveniently accept the "obvious superiority" of a modern approach and ignore other viewpoints or approaches wherein biodiversity fits in naturally.

[JudasGoat]

With robotic advances to deal the higher labor intensity of diverse crop farming, I think it could be cost competitive in the near future. The question I think is: Who will be behind funding and developing? I think it would take a "Tesla" type commitment to complete.

[icebraining]

Regarding urbanization, I think that argument works in the other direction: by living in cities (particularly dense ones), we can leave much more space to undisturbed Nature, including those endangered species. It's rural life that is spread out over everything and everywhere.

[specialist]

As an actual tree hugger, your #3 is my primary reason:

Protecting the environment protects the economy.

My secondary would be the precautionary principle:

Don't muck with things we don't understand.

Which will be mightily tested as we wrestle to mitigate climate change. Which feels like double-or-nothing to me.

[quotemstr]

I've never understood why the precautionary principle gets so much circulation. Followed to its logical conclusion, it prohibits experimentation and technological progress, since nothing can really be proven safe before it's tried.

The idea that we should not "muck with things we don't understand" is anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-human.

[ethbro]

It might be apt to rephrase that into "Don't muck with things we can't fix."

When faced with ecosystem change, our ability to fix ills is extremely limited. Cane toads, kudzu, pythons in the Everglades, Asian carp, Emerald Ash Borers, and wolf depopulation have permanently changed habitats for the worse.

[ajmurmann]

It probably matters if we can unmuck something. Once whales are extinct we cannot bring them back.

Edit: typo

[specialist]

Maybe because it's ignored so routinely?

I'm fully aware of the tradeoffs in making hard choices, the sacrifices made for progress.

Any person who is unable (or unwilling) to do an honest accounting (pros vs cons, ROI) is unqualified to participate in any decision making process, especially on behalf of the rest of us.

Engineering and product design comes down to balancing needs, constraints. These shouldn't be foreign concepts for us geeks. And yet...

[gepi79]

I agree with your last sentence (although mining cadmium might be useful, I do not know) and this is also related to your second argument.

What is worth being protected ?

IMO life and diversity (except e.g. harmful mosquitoes) and health and wealth and not fossil fuel related jobs.

Investment in science and progress should be promoted.

Removal of poverty should be promoted.

Not foolish austerity and protection of harmful activities and traditions.