Man as part of evolution
 

Trantor answered the following to a few questions I had:

[ QUOTE ]
We are part of nature. Natural selection carries on with us in the "equation".

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Personal and collective ethics do come into it (the evolutionary process). We should and do try to. We have endangered species lists and international agreements to save extinctions. We also strive to make things extinct, e.g. dangerous diseases (polio).

[/ QUOTE ]

A few follow-up questions I thought about:

We certainly have the power and the right (because we can) to decide what is good for man and for the living world.

My question is somewhat akin to the phenomenon (can’t recall the term) about observing something changes what is being observed.

Are these types of ethical questions being discussed in science? Should they be discussed? Who gets to decide? Someone values his trophy wall and thus kills an endangered animal. Why is he vilified when someone who eradicates small pox is honored? These are two extremes - but take some not so extreme examples- should these questions be discussed? How are they discussed if they are? Why should we discuss them at all? Why not let nature take its course - now that we are part of it, why not let man just do what it wants and what happens so be it?