Extinction
Biology and Philosophy 13 (3) (1998)
| Abstract | A significant proportion of conservationists' work is directed towards efforts to save disappearing species. This relies upon the belief that species extinction is undesirable. When justifications are offered for this belief, they very often rest upon the assumption that extinction brought about by humans is different in kind from other forms of extinction. This paper examines this assumption and reveals that there is indeed good reason to suppose current anthropogenic extinctions to be different in kind from extinctions brought about at other times or by other factors. Having considered – and rejected – quantity and rate of extinction as useful distinguishing factors, four alternative arguments are offered, each identifying a way in which anthropogenic extinction is significantly different from other forms of extinction, even mass extinction: (1) Humans are a different kind of natural cause from other causes of extinction; (2) Extinctions brought about by humans are uniquely persistent; (3) Anthropogenic extinctions are effectively random whereas past mass extinctions are rule-bound; (4) The impact of the current anthropogenic extinction event differs from the impact of other extinction events of the past, such that future recovery may not follow past patterns. Together, these four arguments suggest that the present-day extinction event brought about by humans may be unprecedented and that we cannot clearly extrapolate from past to present recovery from extinctions. Although insufficient as justification for the claim that present-day extinctions are undesirable, the arguments provide some ammunition for conservationists' conviction that species extinction – in which humans play an accelerating role – ought to be prevented. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJeremy Bendik-Keymer (forthcoming). Species Extinction and the Vice of Thoughtlessness: The Importance of Spiritual Exercises for Learning Virtue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
J. Furedy, B. Damke & W. Boucsein (2000). Revisiting the Learning-Without-Awareness Question in Human Pavlovian Autonomic Conditioning: Focus on Extinction in a Dichotic Listening Paradigm. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science 35 (1):17-34.
James E. Scarff (1980). Ethical Issues in Whale and Small Cetacean Management. Environmental Ethics 2 (3):241-279.
Martin Eimer, Angelo Maravita, Jose Van Velzen, Masud Husain & Jon Driver (2002). The Electrophysiology of Tactile Extinction: ERP Correlates of Unconscious Somatosensory Processing. Neuropsychologia 40 (13):2438-2447.
Mark A. Michael (2005). Is It Natural to Drive Species to Extinction? Ethics and the Environment 10 (1):49-66.
Geraint Rees, E. Wojciulik, Karen Clarke, Masud Husain & Christopher D. Frith (2002). Neural Correlates of Conscious and Unconscious Vision in Parietal Extinction. Neurocase 8 (5):387-393.
Jon Driver & Patrik Vuilleumier (2001). Unconscious Processing in Neglect and Extinction. In Beatrice De Gelder, Edward H. F. De Haan & Charles A. Heywood (eds.), Out of Mind: Varieties of Unconscious Processes. Oxford University Press.
Brooke Alan Trisel (2004). Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts. Philosophical Forum 35 (3):371–391.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads30 ( #40,824 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,703 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
