human impact on the rate of animal extentions

Thank you for instigating this debate. Since there is no established format, I will begin deliberation by positing my stance in this debate as the Con in relation the the apparent stance of the Pro. "The human species has not created 'problems' environmentally in regard to animal extinction, habitat 'destruction' or over hunting that are different from simply the existence of life on earth." I will explain what this stance means first by defining key terms so there is no question in the falsehoods that my opponent is insinuating. 1. Definitions. Problem: "A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome" [1] Extinction: "The state or process of a species, family, or larger group being or becoming extinct" [2] Destruction: "The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired"[3] 2. Deconstruction of Premises. 2.a. "The world is evolving, and in this race we have forgotten about the animals who live, or lived, with us." This statement is has a normative implication that we should remember all the animals that have existed on Earth since the origin of life. While this would be valuable zoological knowledge it has no bearing on the premises of the debate. 2.b. "We killed them all for our benefit." With the misuse and neglect of proper grammar by my opponent it is difficult to understand what is being conveyed. A factual statement with my punctuation is correct, we has a species have utilized the resources that other species yield for our own betterment. This is not a 'bad' thing. There are many examples of species utilizing other species for their own survival or betterment. A simplistic example of this is carnivores hunting prey for subsistence. A more complicated form of this would be codependent species and coevolution[4]. 2.c. "It seems to be alright but, it has had a huge impact on our environment." If the environment appears to be alright then there appear to be no 'problems', ergo the level of impact is irrelevant. 2.d. "150-200 species go extinct because of human created problems such as habitat destruction and over hunting." Though Human involvement may be responsible for the extinction of other animals on Earth, it must be acknowledged that Humans are an animal that is present on Earth. The goal of a species is to propagate its numbers and ensure the survival of its genetic makeup. The increase of population and the expansion of our ability to maintain an environment that is most suitable for our species is the goal of any species on Earth. Our capabilities to ensure our growth by understanding the economics of viable growth makes us the most capable of survival. Even though this is devoid of 'naturalistic morality' it must be understood that habitat change is not only caused by human intervention. "More than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on the planet are estimated to be extinct [5]" This statistic indicates that even though human beings may be responsible for 150-200 species extinct, the course of natural evolution and change has caused the extinction of the bulk majority of life on Earth already. Every habitat destroys another habitat when it grows. The human habitat is simply the most aggressive because we are the most fit animal on Earth. 2.e. "This is not right, what we are doing is wrong. There is an imbalance in the ecosystem." These are assertions of morality. From the stance provided above, would it have been immoral for the extinction of the animals prior to human existence? If no then this moral argument has no ground, and I would assert this. 2.f. "It is time to stop and undo what we have done." This solution has no bearing on the argument but I wish to refute it by stating that extinction means that a species has ceased to exist. This means it is impossible for it to be undone without genetic reconstruction or by a parent species evolving and forming a genetic duplicate. This implication is irrational also in regard to the mending of habitats for the following logic: Habitat A exists. Human involvement destroys habitat A due to a change in environmental conditions. These new environmental conditions are now Habitat B, because some form of life now resides there. In order for Habitat B to return to Habitat A, Habitat B must be destroyed. I await your rebuttal and look forward to deliberation! Thank you again for this debate! [1]: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2]: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3]: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [4]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]:http://en.wikipedia.org...