I think it's kinda cute
I hope I'm adequately addressing what you're actually asking here...
If someone voluntarily seeks to save an endangered species they do it either as an interested individual who gets personal satisfaction from it, or as a capitalist expecting potential revenue since others will value what he does, either because they value the species' survival in itself or the animal will in some way benefit in a production process. If none of these are true, no one will try to conserve the species. Should it still be conserved?
The conjecture that those in the business of medicine, cosmetics and production of chemicals that can be used in food etc might have an interest in preserving species without currently clear uses should maybe be mentioned here.
Thanks for your thoughful response.
It is a good question you ask about conservation. I think that it should be conserved to maintain ecology and for future generations but I also undertand that many species die out in the process of natural selection. The loss of biodiversity would have dire consequences on the environement. However, I think at some level humans have to respect the environment for what it is, not just its use to us. Respect for its own sake is not profitable though.
In the sense that everyone uses air, air is abundant (a resource is scarce only if several people wish to use it in mutually incompatible ways) and therefore no one owns it and there is no need to conserve it. In the more local sense, Rothbard in the video talked about how it used to be that, if someone polluted nearby, you could take them to court since this use of your local air was incompatible with how you previously used it (which is pretty much the general anatomy of any violation of property). "Desirable" pollution which came as a side-effect of very valuable production could still be upheld by negotiating with those who were negatively affected, thereby reaching the "optimal" amount of pollution (and steering it towards less valuable land, since polluting there would be less expensive). In the early 19th century however, courts started rejecting such complaints as illegitimate (encroachment on ownership) and gave more or less total leeway for polluters.
I think that this could work if it was governed correctly, albeit it would be messy and expensive to administrate. What if people don't sue though? The pollution itself could be difficult to measure objectively. And how does compensation work when the land is destroyed or becomes unusable? And what if an indivual that owns land with valuable resources on it chooses to mismanage it deliberatly for short term gain, destroying it in the process. Although this would be unwise, it would be well in their rights to do as long as it didnt interfere with anyone else's rights.
All in all I think that this system of private ownership could have some merit in terms of resource management.
I still think that communal land ownership could be just as effective though. With communal land ownership the needs of the whole community would be considered when managing resources, not just the profitablity of resources for certain people.
..........
There are other issues in regards to land ownership I would like to address (they are more of a philosophical nature):
Is it right for individuals to hold lands that they dont use/have no intention to use when others have none?
What if we were to set a limit on how much land can be owned by an individual?
What if everyone could lease land for agreed periods of time?
What would a world with no land inheritance be like?
What if individuals could own land for their private residence (with full property rights), but all resource rich and commercial land was owned by the commons to be managed by adequately qualified councils for use and benefit of the greater community?