We should be trying to prevent species from becoming extinct.

"The extinction of species is part of the nature, so there is no point for human to make efforts to protect endagered speicies." Oh yeah ? So why not extend this concept further and include weak humans too ? I mean we should be killing off humans that have disabilities, after all they would die in the natural course in nature anyway. What's wrong with this argument ? Why should we play with entirely different set of rules when it comes to us ? BTW -- you don't really need to use you imagination to see where that would lead you, because that was exactly what the Nazis suggested. Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. see http://www.answersingenesis.org... So what's wrong with this, it follows your basic arguments doesn't it ? Again, this is what happens when we try to get our morals from Darwinism. Darwinism is a scientific explanation to how we came to be, but most certainly not of how we should behave. Thank goodness we have evolved enough to overcome our natural instincts. "'No species on earth would put the interest of another species above its own, so why should human beings be any different?" I never said we should place animal interests above our own. If it would be us or them, by all means, go ahead and kill them if you will. Thank goodness, its not. "Since you have chosen to show examples of species that are benefitting the well being of humans, I shall show examples of species that are hazardous to humans." Yes, the list is long and impressive and I am not going to tackle it one by one, instead I will focus on your example about bees and wasps: note that while you are worried about getting stung the fact of the matter is that mankind would cease to exist without bees. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man." This quote is from the book "A world without bees" see: http://www.guardianbooks.co.uk... If you have doubts about this, then this may help: Albert Einstein once predicted that if bees were to disappear, man would follow only a few years later. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Sadly this is not hypothetical stuff, in fact honey bees in the U.S are facing extinction and are being imported to the U.S from Australia. Moreover the problem is that we don't know what we don't-know. Every single animal alive may have a vital role in our eco-system that we don't even know about yet, therefore we must preserve them all. Also note that sometimes scientific knowledge can be learned via the study of animals even when its not life saving. Take for instance the gray wolf which you want to kill off. Here is a paper that studies the gray wolf's social structures. http://www.experiencefestival.com... Note that we can learn about our own past and even present social structures from studying the more primitive and simple social structures of such animals. Finally you say: "Modern science has advanced to the point where inspiration from Nature is no longer required. Today, medicines derived from natural products are in the minority. In any case, the upcoming era of genetic engineering will allow mankind to rid himself of disease without resorting to medicines." I am sorry, but this is just absolutely false, can you point me to your source of information on this ?