Natural selection is about survival of the fittest. We don't want the unfit to dominate the world. Would we?

how do we determine which species should be dying out by natural selection and which ones should be dying out by humans posioning the planet? Just curious.

I'm really against messing with nature. And that includes trying doing so in order to "help". I've always thought we should stop trying to protect Pandas from instiction, wasting a crapload of money, when it's clear that natural selection is trying to bump them off.(Their one of the few species that doesn't care for mating)

No, by trying to help you may be doing irreparable damage to our planet.

Human interference is UNNATURAL selection.

Good question. I believe the human race gets a little egotistical sometimes. Mother nature is in charge, we just live here. What happens is what is supposed to happen. We are also part of the system. If someone wants to think "We" prevented a species from dieing out they can, but it is all part of the grand design. We (Humans) are just another cog in the machine. Just My opinion.

Most species are being reduced in numbers or going extinct because of habitat loss by anthropogenic effects (human disturbance). These changes are too destructive and are happening too fast for species to adapt. The current rate at which species are going extinct is the highest ever recorded in our planet's history. "Survival of the fittest" does not apply here, how can a species adapt if we a) kill them all or b) destroy their environment. Trying to save a species that is being natural selected against does seem counterintuitive but trying to protect our planet's biodiversity - and hence ecological functioning is a matter of survival for all species, including Humans. People forget how intimately we are tied to the environment and how much it does for us. If a link in the chain is broken, the whole machine stops working. If anything, we should at least be protecting our biodiversity for selfish reasons. P.S. Pandas are threatened due to habitat loss, not because they are against mating. P.S.S. Any funding spent to protect a species is generally miniscule compared to the financial value of that species role in the environment (What it would cost us in $ to produce the same effect - if at all possible).

It seems that many answers here are deifying natural selection as if it were divine law. Survival of the fittest is not a competition, but a natural process by which things evolve. We, as intelligent creatures, have progressed enough to recognize the value of preservation. Our so-called interference is the law of natural selection in motion. Things no longer have to happen because, as some have said, they're supposed to. We can decide to preserve a species giving it an opportunity that it otherwise might not have been afforded. This makes us the fittest, and it is why we will survive.