same with this new one. In our reading this week we discovered what an anthropocentric view of the world (that the environment is more or less a tool for human favor) can do to form our moral responsibilities. Some believe that only morally capable beings are owed any moral consideration from others, a category made by moral status. Others believe that only humans should be considered, while some believe in bio-centrism that favors all living things that can be harmed or helped. Assuming the approach of a strict anthropocentric view, we must evaluate a being's importance in its ability to benefit humans, and only humans. When applying this approach to endangered animals, we might evaluate the impact that each species has on our lives. Many endangered animals are in danger because of human activity. If we adopt a view that human needs are more important than the lives of animals, it would be okay for animals to die off in order to supply human need. However, this means that humans will no longer have these animals to rely on for whatever purpose they served in the future. It is also often true that animals hold more than one benefit for humans and can be overlooked for their primary economic purpose. Therefore, possible extinction may have many negative impacts for humans beyond what we initially consider