I liked Meadows’s article because it called to attention the fact that we need to do more to protect biodiversity than just protect a couple animals in a zoo, or fence off an area for a national park. I like that she suggests “just leaving it alone.” It seems so simple, yet, like she pointed out before: there is barely any place on earth that humans haven’t raped for its resources. In the end of her article, Meadows calls for everyone to have moral respect for nature no matter what your reasoning is; whether it’s selfish or whatever.

Moving onto Russow’s article, I was bothered again by the selfishness displayed in the arguments of human beings to save certain species. With all of the recent readings, I am having a hard time coming up with a really good, convincing argument as to why species have value other than the value humans put on them. I hate the selfish arguments for things like game animals (“there will be fewer for humans to hunt if their numbers drop”) or the story about the condor eggshells that were weakened by DDT (“well then it’s probably affecting human health as well”) or protecting rare plants (“because of their medicinal value to humans.”) Why can’t we just protect and conserve things because living thing should have the right to live and thrive?

As for the case of the Orioles… it is more natural for animals or a species to weed themselves out than it is for them to be made extinct by humans. I feel like the Orioles should be encouraged to keep up with their seemingly natural interbreeding, because they are probably coming up with a stronger, better species by doing so. They’re probably doing this and getting the good traits from both species.