🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In ca.politics albert@emerald.cybergate.com (Albert Ramirez Jr.) said: 
 
 
> 
>Wildlife has no inherent importance.  Its only importance is in its  
>relationship to man and in maintain the ecosystem that man needs to
survive.   
>Obviously is man destroys to much wildlife the entire ecosystem will fail
and  
>man will die.  Therefore a certain amount of wildlife must be protected.  

> 
 
I think that the determnination of any "inherent value" in something is a
philisophical arguement. At this point I'm not sure that I would spend too
much time on this, so despite the belief that there is a philisophical view
point that asserts that there is an inherent value in wildlife I suggest we
skip this for now.  
 
We can agree that there is a value to wildlife that is determined by it's
relationship to man. I also agree that we need to protect some amount of
wildlife for us to survive. This is clear. 
 
I would argue that there is a value to willdlife beyond mere survival. We
can easily see that there is a value for tourism. There are a number of
other values that are well out side of mere survival. I myself yearn for
hanging out in the wilderness from time to time just to relax. This will
lower my blood pressure and decrease my heath care costs. Some like to go
fishing (in fact some 40,000,000 Americans do). Some like to go camping.
Some like to hear birds in the morning. I will pay more to have these
things because they make my life better.