Does Environmental Conservation go against evolution?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between environmental conservation and evolution, exploring whether efforts to preserve certain species or ecosystems contradict evolutionary principles. Participants examine the implications of human intervention in natural processes and the potential outcomes of environmental changes on evolution.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the concept of "environmental conservation," suggesting that it does not align with the natural processes of evolution, which are influenced by various factors such as habitat loss and catastrophic events.
  • Others argue that humans are just another factor in natural selection, and that while conservation efforts may seem at odds with evolution, they are part of a broader ecological context.
  • A participant raises the question of whether it is better to allow species to adapt through natural selection rather than intervening to preserve them, especially in the face of global changes like climate change.
  • There is a viewpoint that evolution does not have moral dimensions; outcomes are neutral from an evolutionary perspective, contrasting with human moral considerations regarding species preservation.
  • One participant expresses a personal belief in the morality of conservation efforts, linking the health of ecosystems to human well-being and the historical context of mass extinctions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the relationship between environmental conservation and evolution, with no clear consensus reached. Some see conservation as potentially conflicting with evolutionary processes, while others view it as a necessary consideration for human survival and ecosystem health.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the definitions of conservation and evolution, as well as differing perspectives on the moral implications of human intervention in natural processes. The complexity of these interactions remains unresolved.

quddusaliquddus
Messages
353
Reaction score
3
Jus a thought.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
What on Earth is "Environmental Conservation"? I know conservation of energy and momentum and angular momentum (no one of which contradicts evolution), but conservation of environment? It doesn't happen. See all the current stories about loss of habitat, or think what the Chixalub comet did to the environments of the time.
 
Erm...I must have made that sentence up or sumfin ... embaressing ... anyway - what I meant was people trying to preserve the environment e.g. rare this or that insect or grass that'll go extinct ...
 
OK, then I understand. The environment of evolving creatures can always vary from all sorts of causes, ice ages, droughts, comets, etc. Humans are only another variety of change. Animals and plants will evolve according to whatever is out there, whether it is suburbs rolling over habitats or dogooders preserving some patch of forest. It takes a number of generations for evolution to show up but show up it will in the fullness of time.
 
If the world was to change e.g. via gloabal warming, and certain insects are not be able to live ... then should we preserve them? Wouldn't it betta to let them fight it out so that the fittest amongst them survive?
 
Last edited:
There is no better or worse in evolution, only outcomes. Human beings and human societies have moral preferences, but from the point of view of evolution these are no more moral than a comet strike. Que sera sera.
 
"Que sera sera": is that latin? What does it mean? ... I am a little rusty on my latin - never got around to learnign u c
;D
 
Que sera sera is french meaning What will be, will be
 
Oh!...that song...lol...now i remeber...i guess i Expected it to be latin
 
  • #10
One way to look at it is that humans are just another factor in natural selection. Our challange, being an imperfect & volitional factor of natural selection, will be to keep the ecosystem working for us instead of against us...whether that is aesthetics or life and death. Obviously, our mucking about is bringing down a large number of species, but that is not the first time in the history of the world a massive die-off has happened. (Not that I don't care...I do care because I believe it to be immoral and because, in a practical/selfish sense, it weakens the ecoystem we rely on for a happy life.) Anyway, the evolutionary history that is unfolding is certainly different than it would be if we weren't here.

The thing with saving endangered species is that we know the current ecosystem is beneficial to us...so it makes sense to preserve it.
 

Similar threads

Can Neutral Mutations Become Advantageous After Environmental Changes?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Is the 'Randomness' of Evolution Really Random?
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
12K
Evolution and preservation of endangered animals
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Book Review: The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Does this article support Evolution or Disprove it?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
What Does Yaravirus Discovery Mean for Evolution?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Evolution, the Brittanica.com article: is anyone here...?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Undergrad Deviations of conservation laws in cosmological evolution?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
"bushy" human evolution - commentary in Cell
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Non-entangling environmental noise in QM/QFT
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K