Don't get me wrong Stu. My attitude may seem indifferent but it is just one point of view in the context of this particular discussion. I do believe in protecting the environment and have been involved in
forest activism in the past, for example. I also support the work of organisations such as Sea Shepherd. I generally try to stay out of the way of wildlife, but if something tries to attack me, it dies. That's the law of the jungle.
Science is indifferent - meaning there is (or should be) no agenda that drives our understanding of all things natural and scientific. I strive to be indifferent whenever possible, myself. So Hazy, don't apologize for taking a sober look at the issue sans emotion. I admire that.
I think there are some species that we rely on more than others. Bees for example allow us to farm the way we do. Without them, our entire way of crop production would have to change. We best keep plenty of bees around IMO as we really need them to aid in our own species' survival.
I'm sure there are some species that could be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow without affecting our eco-system in the slightest. Is it just as moral to protect them?
So it comes down to perspective IMO. From the point of view of an environmentalist, we should do what we can to preserve all species because it is morally right. From a "history of the universe" perspective, it doesn't really matter what we do as we are all just dust in the wind at the end of the day.
I'm just happy to be a conscious, self-aware being that can appreciate the fact that I'm flying through space at a high velocity, spinning laps around some star in the suburbs of a rather typical galaxy that is itself spinning its way through spacetime without a destination. And I think that's pretty damn cool.