I've been on the road and not following the discussion the last three weeks,
but I caught a bit of the California Gnat-Catcher issue. This same question,
the legal definition of species, has come up in regard to the Florida
Panther in the past. The FL panther is "contaminated" with South American
Cougar genes and the question has been raised as to whether or not it should
be protected under the ESA. The issue I want to raise is whether we have the
same ethical obligation to a "species" if it is, in fact, not a species, but
a bunch of animals in a given area under endangerment.
My knee-jerk response is, no, we do not. To afford endangered species
protection to an arbitrary group of animals devalues the issue to one of
animal rights. Endangered species protection should be reserved to distinct
biologic species and not extended to any group we fancy. That was my initial
reaction, however, one of my students pointed out that this was just because
I was a biologist and biased toward the biological definition of "species."
His point was that "species" also had a political meaning and that might,
ethically speaking, be just as important as the biological definition. After
all, as he threw my words back at me, "species" only had meaning within the
context of habitat, and therefore the political aim of species was habitat
protection, not animal protection, so whether the animal was a biological
species or not was beside the point.
I hate it when a student comes up with stuff like this. They are suppose to
be in awe of my opinion and not raise questions I can't answer. Anyone got a
useful opinion?
Steven
"You're forgetting about God."
"He doesn't interest me. God Tolerates
the intolerable; he is irresponsible and
inconsistent. God is not a gentleman."
Arturo Perez-Reverte, 1988
The Fencing Master
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|