Should the government invest in the preservation of endangered species?

[Ebowed]

Should the government invest in the preservation of endangered species?

[Lief 🗽]

Of course.

[Gabu]

Yes.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Beats welfare but the answer is still no

[Frodo]

Obviously.  This should hardly be a matter of debate. 

[2952-0-0]

If the government contributed to the problem of endangering animals, then the government should do something in return.

[John Dibble]

To an extent, sure. We humans do use the world's ecosystems for a multitude of purposes, and certain species are important to maintaining said ecosystems. Generally speaking maintaining wildlife preserves is a good way to do this. On the flip side though we do need to recognize that extinction is a natural process - a species will go extinct and eventually a new species might take its place.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To an extent, sure. We humans do use the world's ecosystems for a multitude of purposes, and certain species are important to maintaining said ecosystems. Generally speaking maintaining wildlife preserves is a good way to do this. On the flip side though we do need to recognize that extinction is a natural process - a species will go extinct and eventually a new species might take its place.

Yes, but if we can tie a species' demise to human influence, we have an obligation to help protect that species from extinction.

Nearly every species of animal and plant in the U.S. that is endangered is that way because of human encroachment on their habitat/exploitation of resources.

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?

Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

[2952-0-0]

Though one thing I find objectionable is how they prefer to save cute and cuddly animals first. China spends millions on reseraching pandas and caring for them at nature reserves yet no one knows about fish species that die due to water pollution.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

[Verily]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

The whole point is that no individual person or organization will see it to be in their own benefit to preserve the area; that's the very definition of the Tragedy of the Commons. Therefore, the government has to step in and do it themselves. Your ideological commitment to hating the government doesn't serve you well here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To an extent, sure. We humans do use the world's ecosystems for a multitude of purposes, and certain species are important to maintaining said ecosystems. Generally speaking maintaining wildlife preserves is a good way to do this. On the flip side though we do need to recognize that extinction is a natural process - a species will go extinct and eventually a new species might take its place.

Yes, but if we can tie a species' demise to human influence, we have an obligation to help protect that species from extinction.

Nearly every species of animal and plant in the U.S. that is endangered is that way because of human encroachment on their habitat/exploitation of resources.

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?

Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

Because he is a 16 year old.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

The whole point is that no individual person or organization will see it to be in their own benefit to preserve the area; that's the very definition of the Tragedy of the Commons. Therefore, the government has to step in and do it themselves. Your ideological commitment to hating the government doesn't serve you well here.

There is no reason the government cannot sanction a private organization to do it, I'm sure there are non-profit organizations that want to help animals

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes - as a national resource, it is the government's duty.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

The whole point is that no individual person or organization will see it to be in their own benefit to preserve the area; that's the very definition of the Tragedy of the Commons. Therefore, the government has to step in and do it themselves. Your ideological commitment to hating the government doesn't serve you well here.

There is no reason the government cannot sanction a private organization to do it, I'm sure there are non-profit organizations that want to help animals

The government cannot make an organization do this. 

Seriously, DWTL, you're not making sense.  Your "there's a private market solution to everything" attitude is dangerous.  You obviously haven't thought about it very much and you don't know how to apply real world solutions to the problems we face.

In this case, either you're just ignorant and have a poor understanding of how the government works (claiming that government spending any money at all is just waste) or you just don't care if animals go extinct and you are completely ignorant of the repercussions and side effects that removing a species of plant or animal from an ecosystem can have not only on the ecosystem, but on humans as well.

[Gabu]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

The whole point is that no individual person or organization will see it to be in their own benefit to preserve the area; that's the very definition of the Tragedy of the Commons. Therefore, the government has to step in and do it themselves. Your ideological commitment to hating the government doesn't serve you well here.

There is no reason the government cannot sanction a private organization to do it, I'm sure there are non-profit organizations that want to help animals

This isn't just stupid liberals with no knowledge of economics; even theoretical economists say that the free market will not solve problems relating to the overuse of rival non-excludable resources such as wild animals.

How is a non-profit organization going to stop the extinction of a species?  Phone up a company and ask them to please stop killing the animals?

One of the main things that government can do that individuals can't is ensuring that a group of people arrive at the optimal outcome for everyone when each person acting in their own self-interest will not reach that outcome (and there are such situations, which you would learn in the most basic microeconomics class).

[Eraserhead]

Absolutely.

[Friz]

Absolutely.  We need to preserve all of our furry friends for years to come.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

The whole point is that no individual person or organization will see it to be in their own benefit to preserve the area; that's the very definition of the Tragedy of the Commons. Therefore, the government has to step in and do it themselves. Your ideological commitment to hating the government doesn't serve you well here.

There is no reason the government cannot sanction a private organization to do it, I'm sure there are non-profit organizations that want to help animals

This isn't just stupid liberals with no knowledge of economics; even theoretical economists say that the free market will not solve problems relating to the overuse of rival non-excludable resources such as wild animals.

How is a non-profit organization going to stop the extinction of a species?  Phone up a company and ask them to please stop killing the animals?

One of the main things that government can do that individuals can't is ensuring that a group of people arrive at the optimal outcome for everyone when each person acting in their own self-interest will not reach that outcome (and there are such situations, which you would learn in the most basic microeconomics class).

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

[Gabu]

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

What powers?  The powers of regulation and law enforcement?  Because if that happened, that private organization would become the new government and would cease to be a private organization underneath the government.  You'd still have a government regulating the industry to stop the extinction of a species; it just wouldn't be a democratic government anymore.

Why is it a tautology in your mind that government = bad?  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that sometimes government can accomplish things that individuals acting alone cannot?

[DownWithTheLeft]

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

What powers?  The powers of regulation and law enforcement?  Because if that happened, that private organization would become the new government and would cease to be a private organization underneath the government.  You'd still have a government regulating the industry to stop the extinction of a species; it just wouldn't be a democratic government anymore.

Why is it a tautology in your mind that government = bad?  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that sometimes government can accomplish things that individuals acting alone cannot?

Sometimes, like controlling abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and police departments the government can be helpful.  This, however, is not one of those times.

[Gabu]

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

What powers?  The powers of regulation and law enforcement?  Because if that happened, that private organization would become the new government and would cease to be a private organization underneath the government.  You'd still have a government regulating the industry to stop the extinction of a species; it just wouldn't be a democratic government anymore.

Why is it a tautology in your mind that government = bad?  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that sometimes government can accomplish things that individuals acting alone cannot?

Sometimes, like controlling abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and police departments the government can be helpful.  This, however, is not one of those times.

Why?

[DownWithTheLeft]

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

What powers?  The powers of regulation and law enforcement?  Because if that happened, that private organization would become the new government and would cease to be a private organization underneath the government.  You'd still have a government regulating the industry to stop the extinction of a species; it just wouldn't be a democratic government anymore.

Why is it a tautology in your mind that government = bad?  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that sometimes government can accomplish things that individuals acting alone cannot?

Sometimes, like controlling abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and police departments the government can be helpful.  This, however, is not one of those times.

Why?

Because there is absolutley no reason why we need to protect these animals, people should be free to hunt what they want.  If people want to protect them they can petition the government to get some kind of power to stop it.  I don't want my taxpayers dollars going into discouraging hunting

[Speed of Sound]

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

What powers?  The powers of regulation and law enforcement?  Because if that happened, that private organization would become the new government and would cease to be a private organization underneath the government.  You'd still have a government regulating the industry to stop the extinction of a species; it just wouldn't be a democratic government anymore.

Why is it a tautology in your mind that government = bad?  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that sometimes government can accomplish things that individuals acting alone cannot?

Sometimes, like controlling abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and police departments the government can be helpful.  This, however, is not one of those times.

Why?

You Lose. No Questions.

[Gabu]

Because there is absolutley no reason why we need to protect these animals, people should be free to hunt what they want.  If people want to protect them they can petition the government to get some kind of power to stop it.  I don't want my taxpayers dollars going into discouraging hunting

Go ask a biologist how useless animals are.  You will get enlightened on how ridiculously complicated ecosystems can be and how the sizable reduction (not even the extinction) of even one single species can have drastic, far-reaching consequences (by way of removing the natural predator of another species, for example) that have tons of ramifications that directly affect humans.

What happens if overfishing was allowed to continue indefinitely until there were no fish left in the sea?  Then what?  Do you have any idea how vitally important they are to the global ecosystem, not even mentioning how important they are to many economies?  Just as no man is an island, neither is any animal an island, either - everything that is done to any species on the planet has consequences affecting all of the others.  It's not doing it solely for the animals' sake; it's doing it because not doing it will negatively affect humans, too.