Polar bears and Astronauts (self-titled)

I haven't yet explained on this site the reason for naming it "Polar Bears and Astronauts."  but enough procrastination. 

Polar Bears have become something of a center-piece for the ethically extreme environmentalists.  The threat to their survival represents a growing concern for the dediversification of our planet.  More species are going extinct at a faster rate than ever before. (if you are a dork for sappy stories about furry cuddly things dying off all over the world, check out IUCN's red list, and bring a box of hankies)  I make a joke about this, but from a biological perspective this does pose a real threat to humans in the future; less diversity = less ecosystem stability = more blossoms of everything weird and unheard of.  

The Galapagos are good examples of this, there is less ecosystem diversity there, which means, unlike in a rain forest, there may be only one or two species to fill a niche and complete the circle of life.  An invasive species can sweep in and provide a reign of terror.  On the galapagos it seemed like every other week there was some new bug that was everywhere, then they die off.  Think of what the world would be like if bacteria had even more dramatic life cycle waves. 

  

Basically, low ecosystem diversity could be pretty costly.  Another short example are the deer in Wisconsin.  They are everywhere and they cause diseases like giardia and chronic waste disease as well as hit-your-car-itus, which I've heard is nasty.  This is a costly issue, and it is caused by the lack of species diversity in carnivores that we killed off like wolves and mountain lions. 

The case of the polar bear is no different.  Species extinction is inevitable and it is important to note that we have more extinctions now than ever before.  Where should the line be drawn? At what point does the polar bear become important?  Maybe never, but what's next? Any conversationalist will confirm that species extinction starts a domino effect and one extinction never just ends with one extinction.  This is a piecemeal massacre caused by global warming.

I ask when will this become important because I am an economist and I know humans inescapably make decisions on the margin.  Decisions like saving the polar bears don't fall on the margin.  This is because they are more costly than any benefit gained from saving a single species.  There are in essence two types of environmental problems those that fall on the margin and those that are two costly.  

Astronauts are the physical manifestation of what human kind can accomplish.  I pinned the idea of an astronaut up against polar bears for this reason.  The same way we have accomplished piecemeal development and growth we are also creating piecemeal environmental degradation.  Yet the two extremes must work together.  Science world meet your corporate world friend from college and suck it up dude you're both right!