Besides it being sad not having them around anymore, is it really

if you want to get all nihilistic nothing matters.

>>2083716
I mean if we can prevent a species dying out as a result from out activity, we should. We could probably stop worrying about pandas if china would devote their efforts to preserving their environments more than captive breeding.
but with their low birth rate and overly specific and inefficient diet, pandas weren't a very 'stable' species to begin with.

>>2083716
It's really difficult to tell all the cascading effects on the ecosystem.

So it's better safe than sorry.

Maybe we already fucked up, and the effects will be seen hundred or thousand years down the line.

Far fetched scenario is ground erosion because there is no longer free-roaming grazers.

But no, not everything needs to be saved. We just barely have an idea what we are doing.

>>2083723
Honestly not trying to be. I just don't see what the big deal is as there don't seem to be horrible consequences to extinctions.

Extinction is just a boogeyman. So long as the organisms at the bottom of the food chain still exist, people will be fine.

it depends I guess. supposedly we would be in deep shit if (honey?) bees went extinct, so those matter, but other species probably don't influence much

If a species is nearly extinct and it's not already affecting the environment, I doubt the total erasure of them will affect much.