... biodiversity.¹

A cynic might well conclude that the discussion we've just completed is evidence that it probably isn't worth it to try to conserve biodiversity. I'm not a cynic, or I wouldn't be teaching this course.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... respect.²

This section draws heavily from Chapter 4 of [2]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... done³

Of course, I'm an amateur philosopher at best, so me being unaware of a philosophical theory is weak evidence of its non-existence.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... do.⁴

Feel free to ask me why, if you're curious about my reasons.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... defined⁵

Does it include only humans, for example?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... value.⁶

Rawls' approach is based on the idea that just outcomes are those to which any of the participants would agree if they didn't know their role in society. It is clearly focused on determining just outcomes within human society and considers other parts of the world, if at all, only to the extent that those other parts of the world influence outcomes that affect human beings.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... resources).⁷

I'm going to use the phrase ``conserve biodiversity'' throughout the rest of these notes. I don't mean to imply that conserving biodiversity is the only thing we might have an ethical obligation to do towards the environment. I just don't want to repeat myself constantly.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... composed.⁸

In the case of landscapes we might even hope that we'd be able to place values on inanimate objects.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... extinction?⁹

The reason everything isn't extinct is that some species give rise to one or more new species before they go extinct.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.