[argc]

The value and worthiness is subjective, I'd support astronomical expenses and hardship humans to improve wildlife habitat because I think its important and care about it more than most other possible things to spend money on. The reason that makes sense to me is that we have no way of bringing extinct species back, and we are killing them off at record speed. The different life forms on our planet are absolutely amazing, why shouldn't we do everything in our power, for any cost, to replenish and improve habitat for them so they can survive for our descendants to see?

[fsckboy]

why shouldn't we do everything in our power, for any cost, to replenish and improve habitat for them so they can survive for our descendants to see

you don't really mean what you've said, everything in our power? for any cost?... If we literally spent every bit of cash we had to do as you say and maximize biodiversity, our descendents would survey the biodiversity while wearing animal skins and hunter gathering and striving to someday reinvent agriculture, fertilizers, pesticides, and internal combustion engines.

yes, i'm not being serious. neither were you.

[argc]

No I was simply using strong language to suggest that I feel strongly about it. I'm not sure where to draw the line but as a concrete example, I'd consider voting for a law which created a large tax to fund biodiversity protection. Say 10% of income for high earners, or perhaps a corporate tax, etc etc. At the end of the day its almost an aesthetic decision, I'd like to live in a world with high biodiversity and where humans are well integrated with nature, where there's animal crossings over roads and all kinds of ridiculous things like that, and I'd be willing to pay for it with some non-trivial amount. Anyway, I'm commenting on hacker news, don't take me too seriously.

[pvaldes]

Biodiversity is part of the economy