Do Humans Have a Morale Obligation to Protect the Earth's Species?

Do we? We are the cleverest thing on this planet and chances are that we will be the only intelligent being to evolve in the history of the planet. Furthermore, the same might be said for the universe. Should this distinct, unique status not give us a morale obligation to protect everything that currently lives on the planet? To those of you familiar the history of nature and what is happening to the worlds habitats today it should be no surprise that if things continue as they are by the end of the century half of all living species on this planet should be extinct.

I can't claim total accuracy for this graph.

Now my question to you is, if we do have such an obligation, what are we doing to preserve biodiversity that has effectively dominated history for the past 11 thosand years?

PS The graph isn't very accurate but essentially outlines the fact that in recent history extinction rates have massively risen

Nope, we don't. We have nothing universally binding us to make it so we have an obligation to help the earth's species, if you want to help them or encourage people to do so then by all means do so. But as of now we have no obligation to do as such.

From a Christian perspective we are the masters of earths animals.

Can we eat it? Nope? Can it be of other use to us? Nope? Will the extinction of said animal hinder us in any way? Nope? Then should we care about whether it's still around? Well...not really.

lol, I have an honest opnion about this, I think that we are obligated to protect the earth, because in all honesty We have to coexist with the other species, if not then we'll end up destroying the vary thing that allowed us to live and evolve which would be the earth, I think you have a moral obligation to take care of your mother, so why not take care of earth?

But the question is, what are the required moral obligations we must do.

Are we though? When we are gone they shall remain, and humans can't last forever. We will be wiped out at some point in the future, just as species before us were extinct by natural causes. We have not mastered the Earth, far from it, and I doubt that we shall ever master it.

Other than the fact that without bio-diverstity it is debatable whether you would exist. Destroying that is destroying what caused you to exist.

Very true. Whenever we get close to "mastering" it, Mother Nature is kind enough to put us back in our place with a volcanic eruption or massive earthquake or something. It's both epic and scary when you think about it.

Earth has faced mass extinctions two or three times, after which the remaining species and their evolved offspring repopulated it once again. It's as you said: at some point, humans will no longer exist. In that case, either all humans are dead and life still exists, in which case it'll flourish once again at some point. Or, in the other case, the sun ran out of fuel and imploded on itself, destroying all life on Earth.
The bottom line is: whether or not humans kill off a majority of species (of which a lot still aren't even discovered), once we're gone, Earth will eventually restabilise and be full of life.

If we can't master it or at least expand so much as an effect on Earth won't result in the extinction of the human race, but from all accounts the reason we don't see civilization would most likely be in my opinion they end up killing them selves before even reaching a solar system stage.

Eh...what? When I first looked at it, it looked like a normal sentence, but when I tried to comprehend it, it seemed like random words were missing, or inserted into it.

Huh, well pretty much to summeriaze it we will most likely end up destroying ourselves before we actually leave the planet, its why we don't see aliens or whatever.

Ah, yes. Well, that does make sense. Not sure what that has to do with killing animals, but that doesn't make it invalid, so the argument stands!

Though if we do have a moral obligation to protect earth's species does that mean Meat eating should be banned, or at least heavily taxed.

By that logic, should all predators and carnivores (or even omnivores) be killed? I don't really see why anyone would think all meat eating should be banned. Of course, the mass production of meat is in quite a few cases an ethically touchy subject, and I can get why people are against that (as for me, it's not really stopping me from eating anything).

Economically, socially and enviromentally are sensible. I'd also advocate greater investment in GM crops.

Yeah,... no.
The human species has the same obligation to other species as any other does it: that is to say, it doesn't.

This sums up a large amount of the points very well.

Master it? A large number of species [a large number of which are now extinct, either by us or by natural occurances] have had free reign for tens of thousands of years before going extinct. You cannot really compare our short timespan and long list of achievements to those of other animals. That is to say: you cannot say that we are incapible of it based against the track records of other animals because we are different.
As opposed to the multitudes of animals that have preceeded the human race, we have the ability and ambition to not only expand to the craggy rock la bas but also to the stars so that the very universe will tremble at our approach and even the gods shall know our names.
I firmly believe that the human race will eventually expand to the universe having conquered the Earth.

That actually... doesn't make sense.
Relying on the basic idea of sentience...
The fact that we do not see aliens can be explained pretty simply and for a number of reasons:
1. The vastness of space;

Incase any of you never caught on: space is really, REALLY big. Moving from a habited planet [based on human life requirements] would take at least 22 years at light speed [to the nearest known planet that can support human-like life].

2. The number of life-supporting planets:

Really speaks for itself, but the point is that, by human standards, the neighborhood isn't really that great.

3. Earth's location:

By sci-fi standards, we would probably be called a back-water planet as we are not that close to the galactic core. There is no real reason to come to this system or explore it. By all indications, there is nothing scientifically special about our system beyond what is on Earth [that is to say, us]. The other planets appear to be quite common. We also have a pretty small star by galactic standards, so there is nothing special there either.

4. Assumptions:

You are assuming that sentience=destruction. That is not necessarily true. It is entirely possible for a sentient race to become pacifist.

5. Ect.

What im going from is the Fermi Paradox tied with the Drake equation (Carl Sagan had a lot of opinions on this)

Why would anyone care about the galactic core more than the spiral arms? As well, the size of our star is pretty much a necessity for all imaginable forms of life.

It's et cetera, and thus etc., not ect.

If it does not have a vital importance to our survival, then there is no reason.

My point was that we are a long ways away from stuff and you know it.

Blarg.
That is all I have to say.
For in the multitudes of times that I used the correct spelling, you never congratulated me or even commented. For that matter, when I spelled any word correctly.
But so obsessed with me you are that you would scrutinize my every word as to find the most minute of incorrectness and so great is your self-righteousness that you feel the necessity to correct me.
And so I say: Blarg.