This whole discussion stems from some controversial remarks regarding the effort at saving the Giant Panda.
I took the point-of-view, offered by evolutionary biology, that species extinction is part of the mix.
That was the sum-total of what I was saying. There is no inherent, connoted moral argument one can make from the standpoint of evolutionary biology that we human beings have a duty to sustain all the endangered species on the planet.
On the other hand . . .
A Christian ethic stemming from an acceptance of creation as part of God's gracious love, and the special role human beings have been given for care of creation, usually discussed under the term "stewardship", would most certainly offer a way to approach discussing human responsibility for all of God's creatures.
Of course, an ethic of stewardship should not ignore evolutionary biology; on the contrary, it should embrace it. Yet, it should do so considering it a guide to intelligent and thoughtful stewardship, rather than willy-nilly placing blame and investing in saving every vanishing species on the planet. I mentioned one in the linked post, the gray wolf. That's a wonderful example of intelligent stewardship; hunted to near extinction for the crime of doing what it does, the gray wolf has returned to near-healthy status, population-wise. The opening up of a wolf hunt in Idaho is poor management. The animal needs more time and to recover.
Another good example is the recent effort to draw attention to the plight of polar bears threatened by the disappearance of summer ice due to global warming. Some others are attention to frog populations as barometers of environmental health; the disappearance of frog populations, both in temporal and tropical areas, indicates there are many problems in the environment that should command our attention.
Of course, it should also be noted that we understand very little about the structure of the interconnected web of life to determine, beforehand through the use of some kind of rule, which species should command our attention, and whose perilous place should receive resources for saving. That shouldn't deter us from making the difficult decisions necessary for parsing out scarce resources of money, emotional energy, and intellectual effort, at making these determinations. In fact, we will never have the kind of understanding necessary to make these decisions as completely as we might like. We can only move forward with the information and understanding we have at any given moment.
I would also say that while I am hardly a fan of much of our social and political approach to western industrial society over the past two centuries, assigning blame here is both cheap and easy. It doesn't do anything to change our social practices that put stresses on the environment. I would also point out that while we have indeed made some strides, for the most part human societies do a poor job of preventive maintenance. Even when we know a problem may loom ahead of us, especially when these problems involve entrenched social interests endowed with a great deal of power, addressing them in a way that mitigates the coming ill-effects usually fails. For example, research during the 1970's showed pretty conclusively that the use of chlorofluorocarbons would result in depletion of the ozone layer, leading to an increase in ultraviolet radiation getting through, and creating a hazard for much of life. From the moment that research was released, the chemical industry went through a years-long, full-throated effort to discredit the research in an effort to stem the tide of possible legislation that would harm their economic interests.
When a hole in the ozone layer was discovered in the late 1980's, the global response was pretty rapid and coherent. It was, indeed, a remarkable example of the UN doing something right, and in the right way. Yet, had they done so a decade earlier, when the information was available that this result was coming, the effects may have been less severe (although, to be honest, we have no way of knowing that for sure). We didn't precisely because part of human society is the dubious, and morally frustrating, practice of politics.
This further complicates the way we address issues of global import. While we have made great strides, again, over the past fifty or sixty years not only in defining and addressing issues of global concern, but of raising the awareness of the global community to the necessity of shared, coordinated action, we still have a long way to go. An ethic of stewardship that is aware of the limitations of human political institutions and practices as they exist (rather than as we may prefer the exist, or as they might exist if only everyone were as intelligent and wise as we) is a necessary part of any such Christian ethic.
This is just a sketch, by the way, to point out to some folks that I am not arguing we human beings have no responsibility to "do something" about issues of environmental import. On the contrary, such a responsibility comes precisely from our being a part of creation, part of the natural world (and here I disagree whole-heartedly from Feodor's expressed idea that human beings are "removed" in some way from the global ecosystem; that just isn't possible). I believe, however, we should do it intelligently, thoughtfully, and with one eye always on the limitations inherent to it.
