Should we protect nature for its own sake?

In a 2012 review of . . . experiments, . . . found unequivocal evidence that when ecosystems lose biodiversity, they become less efficient, less productive and less stable. And they are less able to deliver many of the services that underlie human well-being.

It is an apt conclusion; mankind should protect nature for its own sake.

Should we protect nature for its own sake?

How? We know about global warming, we know what we need to do and refuse to do it in any way that might cause short term economic hardship, preferring instead the long term economic hardship of increased temperatures, bringing new diseases and resurrections of old ones, harsher weather events more often, and rising sea level's.

So how do we protect nature when we cant protect ourselves or the planet from our damaging practices? And given that, is there any way to protect nature without protecting the planet and limiting climate damage?

Can anyone answer how?

It is actually for our sake.

8 billion people are too many. And those with an anit-nature/biodiversity attitude prove it.

The fact that there are still people who could find fault with ArtistAtLarge's comment, illustrates why the human species is on a collision course for extinction.

The question assumes that nature is somehow a separate thing from mankind's existence.

Nature can live without mankind. Mankind cannot live without nature.