maybe this is not such a good idea

Not only do I believe the theory of evolution, but I am huge supporter of "survival of the fittest." My greatest concern with humans as a species is that through the marvels of medicine and science we have managed to cheat that principle to the greatest of extremes.

At the same time we have managed to play the other side of the game by driving god knows how many species into extinction, not to mention the vast number that are close enough to extinction to be classified as "endangered."

For the most part I feel it behooves us to do our part in correcting the horrible atrocities we've committed against nature by protecting our endangered species. It’s the least we can do, right? (which incidentally is usually the most we ever do)

But perhaps it is arrogant to think that we must save ALL of the species we are wiping out. As we--speaking for all living creatures here--move on, age, and "evolve" it only makes sense that some of us would have gone the way of the dodo... deforestation or not. I think that perhaps we should apply some level of wisdom as to what species we actually save.

Here's an example of what I mean:

SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- The endangered grey nurse shark is its own worst enemy, its young eat each other in the womb, so Australian scientists have a radical rescue plan to artificially inseminate and breed the ocean predator in test-tubes.

I cannot deny that the reason these sharks aren't doing so well in the first place is that humans have somehow managed to drive their numbers down. I'm not sure what is worse for the grey nurse shark - whether they have been hunted for their precious parts (whatever that means), whether they have been poisoned by industrial beach waste, or perhaps they taste great on a cracker. I don't know.

But that’s beside the point.

If prenatal cannibalism isn't a sign that this species needs to be "selected" right out of the game of evolution, then I don't know what is.