I have struggled with the concept of endangered species. Like Curtis had mentioned in one of his earlier blog posts, 90 percent of the species that were once on earth, no longer are. While I understand this concept, its extreme reality only hit me recently. Our government makes long strides to protect many of these endangered species and while I agree that it is important to do so, is it our responsibility to play god? I agree that if a species is becoming extinct with humans at fault, then we should try to save that species, but humans are also at a very high level of the overall food chain and any actions we do trickles down to even the smallest of species, so there aren’t many cases where our actions aren’t at fault. And therefore, I think that we should do everything we can to save and prevent the extinction of a species, even if it is “natural” for most species to become extinct. Also, I realize that the current situation blurs these lines because it has been said that Global Warming is increasing the numbers of animals on the endangered species lists. And while most scientists agree that Global Warming is the fault of humans, one could agree that the addition of these species to the endangered list is at the fault of humans as well.
The question I pose here is do you also think that we should save these endangered species, or do you think that humans are just another animal and we should follow the process of “natural” selection, letting these animals go extinct? And if you do agree that we should save them, do you have any suggested methods? Some extremists propose trying to limit human population growth. Should humans continue to grow in population as other species become extinct because of our large numbers or should we alter our lifestyle?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely think that we should do everything possible to save the endangered species on this planet. Do we save babies who are dying because they were born prematurely? Do we try to save cancer patients? Are not these ANIMALS also endangered? If we can use our modern technology to save those of our own race, then why not use all the resources available to preserve the lives of other species? I'm not sure the best way to preserve the wild. After all, the growing human population is hindering the ability to preserve the forests. It is essential though, that we severely limit the amount of forests we destroy for the sake of human lives. Even keeping the animals in captivity is better than letting the species die.
ReplyDelete"Prior to the dispersion of humans across the earth, extinction generally occurred at a continuous low rate, mass extinctions being relatively rare events. Starting approximately 100,000 years ago, and coinciding with an increase in the numbers and range of humans, species extinctions have increased to a rate unprecedented since the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. This is known as the Holocene extinction event and is at least the sixth such extinction event. Some experts have estimated that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100."
ReplyDeleteI think it's definitely our responsibility as members of this planet we all share to help protect and save any species in trouble - whether it's our fault or not. Especially since we exert most of the power and rule over nature. This article on Wikipedia offers evidence that human existence is quickly deteriorating coexisting species survival.
I also agree with Morgan, a life is a life, whether it's human or not, it deserves a chance!
I believe that the extinction of certain species is inevitable. Who's to say that by saving one species we don't lead to the extinction of another. Humans are the dominant species on this planet, just as other species have dominated in the past. Placing a limit on human population growth does seem like it would be effective, but why should we limit our own growth because of weaker animals? People have to weigh how important species variation is. Other than being different or interesting, most species are not linked directly to human existance, and so the majority of people could care less if these animals survive. It is sad to see a creature dissappear, especially as a result of human technological advances. A mass extinction will happen eventually, and when it does, everything will be back to square one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kerry in that we cannot save every species and that extinction is unavoidable. However, if we have the means and ability to save a species, why not? Its obvious the combination of human impact and global warming will kill more species than we can save but I guess we have to view it as whatever progress we can make, as little as it may be, can make a difference (just like that cliche qoute about the boy throwing the starfish back into the ocean). Maybe we can focus on saving "keystone species" (species that regulate trophic structure and if removed from the environment can negatively influence all the other species in that community). Also, I recently attended Powershift and I did learn that one of the greatest ways you can reduce your carbon footprint is to not have children. However, if everyone took this statement to heart our species would go extinct as well
ReplyDelete