Dr. Alexander Pyron’s central argument in his piece We Don’t Need to Save Endangered Species. Extinction is Part of Evolution. can be summarized as follows:
- Mass extinctions have historically happened and allowed life recover throughout the history of life on Earth.
- If mass extinctions have historical precedence, then they are natural.
- If mass extinctions are natural, then the current mass extinction is natural.
- If the current mass extinction is natural then it is okay.
- ∴ we need not be exorbitantly concerned with the current mass extinction.
Pyron goes on to explain that extinction is actually beneficial for evolution by using historical evidence of life flourishing after extinctions. Furthermore, he argues, we must focus our energy on conserving species that humans benefit from, and there is no point in simply preserving biodiversity for its own sake.
Before getting to my points of disagreement, I want to establish significant common ground with Pyron. I believe Pyron is right in that we cannot save every species. We are living in the anthropocene and, as humans, we have made radical changes to the Earth. Not every species will survive as our environment continues to shift with climate change and continued human development. I also agree with Pyron in that, as humans, it makes sense to focus our limited efforts on saving species that directly benefit the continuation of our species. For instance, Pyron makes a good point in that we should not let harmful disease populations flourish. We have a responsibility to manage our changing world as we see morally fit.
My central concern, however, with Pyron’s argument is in clause 4. Mass extinctions are natural in that there is precedence. Yet, this does not mean that mass extinctions are necessarily okay and not a cause for concern. Pyron uses a geological timescale to make his argument, which is very powerful and humbling, but not practical, point of view. For example, Pyron writes, “In 50 million years, Europe will collide with Africa and form a new supercontinent, destroying species (think of birds, fish and anything vulnerable to invasive life forms from another landmass) by irrevocably altering their habitats”. To put that in perspective, the first humans are estimated to be 200,000 years old and, while it can be traced back farther, the current high rate of mass extinction is only really evident in the past 200 years. In contrast, 50 million years is impossibly far in the future. While it is humbling to view anthropogenic-extinction as one of many mass extinctions that have and will continue to happen, it changes nothing about our current species protection efforts. Whatever may happen in 50 million years should have no bearing on our current actions, as it is impossible to be certain of anything that far in the future. It is irrelevant.
Likewise, a geological timescale completely ignores the nuances of present day extinctions. Pyron compares preserving biodiversity with a much more pressing issue: dealing with the effects of climate change. He writes, “Will we be able to feed ourselves? Will our water supplies dry up? Will our homes wash away? But unlike those concerns, extinction does not carry moral significance, even when we have caused it”. Pyron treats preserving biodiversity as an opposing goal to climate change adaptation, but these goals are not separate. Many species plant and animal species play important roles in filtering our water supply or fertilizing our soil for agriculture. In addition, climate change mitigation will reduce both the concerns brought up by Pyron as well as loss of biodiversity. Preserving our food, water, and homes and preserving biodiversity cannot be separated because they share a cause in climate change.
Furthermore, Pyron glosses over a number of factors that give species additional value. For example, he talks about the preserving species that are beneficial for humans, but it is difficult to define exactly what these species include. As humans, we use species for many uses such as medicine and food. Beyond these select species, many additional species contain genetic and biological information that is useful for conducting research and developing new medicines and products. And beyond even these species, there are related species that provide ecosystem services. Therefore, many species must be conserved to benefit humans.
Another way Pyron fails to acknowledge the importance of species is in by not considering the aesthetic value of species. Like great artworks, species of great aesthetic value should be conserved in order to preserve this value for generations to come. Many species have important cultural or historical value and should thus be preserved. Other species are simply stunning in appearance and should be preserved just for this value.
Finally, Pyron does not acknowledge the experience of the individuals of a species. This is important as Pyron considers extinction to not carry any “moral significance”. Yet, extinction means that a significant number of individuals will suffer and die. Sentientism explains this by describing sentient beings as experiencing suffering and suffering as something that should be avoided when possible. Therefore, sentient animals should not suffer unnecessarily, as they would during a mass extinction.
In conclusion, Alexander Pyron argues that we need not be overly concerned with extinctions because of the historical precedence for mass extinction events. However, by taking this historical perspective, Pyron ignores the nuances of today’s extinctions and underrates the importance of biodiversity preservation. For example, he glosses over the interrelatedness of biodiversity and other issues and he under emphasizes issues such as anthropocentric value, aesthetic value, and sentientism. Even with these nuances taken into account, Pyron is right in that not every species can be preserved. Still, many species should be preserved and there is certainly reason to be concerned with the sixth mass extinction.