Species extinction is not a human “invention” but an intrinsic part of natural evolutionary processes. It is therefore important to note that saving species cannot be virtuous in and of itself. Arguably, when species extinction is not human-caused, non-interference in wild nature expresses the virtues of wonder and respect for nature suggested by Hursthouse by allowing evolution to proceed unhindered. However, this is not always straightforward. For instance, ensuring the survival of a predatory species essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem may express respect, even if it imposes a human influence on the ecosystem, potentially diminishing its perceived wildness
I agree with the example of protecting a predatory species is particularly effective: the intervening to save a keystone predators must reduce from human free nature. As Palmer suggest that, ethical conservation requires us to hold a multiple of definitions of wilderness rather than defaulting the rule. Because of this, it reminds me that, respect for nature sometimes is very difficult, but we need to do it. Thank you.