This is a debate we're having at school, I'm supporting the idea of protecting them but I'm going to look at this in the opposite view so that I can get some ideas to what I can argue when these come up:
Why should we protect them? they're going to die of other things anyway, like global warming is not only affecting the humans but the animals/plants as well, so might as well get rid off them beforehand and make money out of their furs or whatever. I mean I can even wear those big furry coats and have a collection of those animals that museums would pay a lot of money to get their hands onto...I don't care if they die! money is all i care about!
One argument against it I would say is that it's going against nature to save endangered species--the whole point of natural selection and survival of the fittest is to keep killing things off. Species have been killing each other off since the beginning of time. Humans are just another animal, so it's not abnormal us to kill other animals in the betterment of our own species. That's one argument I guess.
I don't know though. I like saving endangered species. *shrug*
This is a debate we're having at school, I'm supporting the idea of protecting them but I'm going to look at this in the opposite view so that I can get some ideas to what I can argue when these come up:
Why should we protect them? they're going to die of other things anyway, like global warming is not only affecting the humans but the animals/plants as well, so might as well get rid off them beforehand and make money out of their furs or whatever. I mean I can even wear those big furry coats and have a collection of those animals that museums would pay a lot of money to get their hands onto...I don't care if they die! money is all i care about!
Okay so ppl rebut on this please.
-------------
Well, that argument is extremly vague. I could just say that you are going to die anyways someday so I could just kill you now and make myself a nice looking human skin purse. Oh, that'd be stylish.
Another argument people make is that by protecting the animals you are harming people via job loss or other financial loss. Like the spotted owl in N. California. Forests are protected for the sake of the owl but loggers' jobs are lost.
Of course their jobs are going to be lost anyway when all the big trees are gone so I'm in favor of protecting the environment now while there is still some left rather than trying to squeeze every last buck out of "resource development".
I'm on the fence about this. Most of species earth has had are already extinct. Some of them, like the North American horse (as opposed to the mustangs we have now), were extinct without man's influence. Why are we trying to influence it now?
Extinction is natural, more than 99% of all species are extinct but then there is natural extinction, and unnatural extinction. Natural extinction is caused by a species being outperformed and replaced by another species, thus its niche, or "job" in nature is filled and the ecosystem remained balanced. Unnatural extinction has happened more often recently because of the actions of humans. Unnatural Extinction is caused by:
1. Competition with Humans
2. Loss of Habitat
3. "Medicinal/Magical" uses
4. Novel Uses(tourist souvenirs like elephant tusks)
5. Direct Assault(Recreational Hunting)
6. Introduction to Exotics(a new species is introduced and lacks natural predators in the area and overpopulates and ruins the area's ecosystem)
When unnatural selection occurs a species isn't there to replace its niche and an unbalance in the ecosystem occurs. I believe that we have to be able to realize when a species is going extinct due to the above 6 causes(off the top of my head there may be more, or it may be a bit imprecise) or natural extinction, and we should definitely preserve the ones that belong there before it gets out of hand.
Let me guess - Mammals, primarily. But also birds and reptiles. And if there's an endangered amphibian, you think we should protect that too. Maybe even some fish. Am I missing something?
To be honest, I don't really care (and I doubt you would, either) if an insect species went extinct, or a spider. But they're classified as animals. Endangered tree species? Plants? They don't get their own PSAs because they're not cute and cuddly, nor of the same class as us like polar bears are. The darwinian heirarchy of survival goes like this: Humans want to save themselves as individuals, than themselves as a species first and foremost. Then humans will want to save creatures within their order, then class, then kingdom. Which means apes come before mammals, and mammals come before any other animal, and animals come before any other form of life (like plants, fungi or protists).
Species go extinct every second in the Amazon rain forest. I agree with Mathis that humans shouldn't infringe so much on natural habitats, etc. Little things, we could do. And I will admit, I do feel sorry for the polar bears. I believe that we should protect natural habitats of animals and any other form of unique life, such as the Amazon rain forest.
But at the same time, I recognize that human beings are small in the great scheme of things. Sure, we've done a lot since the industrial revolution to destroy our planet. But when we try to change things for the better, our good intentions are insignificant.
Species will go extinct. That's how life works. One day, humans might even go extinct. And our brains and length we've been alive aren't helpful. Some of our extinct ancestors lived ten times longer than we have, and still died out.
Yes. If the species were going to extinct from other causes, then, no, because that is biology and shouldn't be messed with, however, if it is because of humans, which it generally is in day and age, then yes, I do believe endangered species should be protected. Endangered animals should be protected from human influence, whether it is directly, or indirectly, resulting from loss of habitat, or trying to compete with us for a species that we use for food.
@Cinders
To be honest, I don't really care (and I doubt you would, either) if an insect species went extinct, or a spider. But they're classified as animals. Endangered tree species? Plants? They don't get their own PSAs because they're not cute and cuddly, nor of the same class as us like polar bears are.
Sorry, but I find that irrelevant. If we are causing the species to go extinct, even if it is a type of spider, or bug, we should do everything we can to save it. All animals have some importance in the natural scheme of things, and most species are going extinct because of some kind of human influence, or another. Very little species actually go extinct naturally any more... They go extinct because we destroy their habitat for resources... They go extinct because we kill off their prey... They go extinct because of global warming and climate change... There are many reasons. Plus, basically every species of animal/organism is relevant to the ecological workings of the planet. It's like how James Lovelock described in the Gaia hypothesis - Everything natural in this world is inter-connected and they all work together to keep this planet trying to work naturally.
@Brittanagleefan.
I think that people shouldn't work so hard on keeping pandas from going extinct.
I have only one word for you: Why?
@Next person on the list (you'll know who you are)
I'm on the fence about this. Most of species earth has had are already extinct. Some of them, like the North American horse (as opposed to the mustangs we have now), were extinct without man's influence. Why are we trying to influence it now?
Because, not all species are going extinct naturally any more. Human influence is causing more extinctions now. Because of human influence, in New Zealand, about 25-30% of the native flightless birds went extinct since the 1800's. Funnily enough, it coincides with the time frame of the British arriving to colonise the area.
@jillywinkles.
One argument against it I would say is that it's going against nature to save endangered species--the whole point of natural selection and survival of the fittest is to keep killing things off. Species have been killing each other off since the beginning of time. Humans are just another animal, so it's not abnormal us to kill other animals in the betterment of our own species. That's one argument I guess.
You sound a bit half-hearted about this, really... Or maybe you just aren't that enthusiastic, because you 'like saving endangered species'. Anyway, I'll stop you here, because I see what you are saying, but it is isn't going against nature to save a species that we were causing to die off, anyway. Yes, we do like to kill off species for the betterment of our own, but to do so in this day and age would be actually harming our own species, not saving it.
@adavila.
at least not the government
Please elaborate, as this is the most extremely vague comment I have seen on here. Honestly, what do you mean? You don't want the government to do it? Is it because it would cost money? Or would you rather that privatised companies did it, so`the government wouldn't be spending money on this endeavour? Or, do you just think that a privatised company might care more about the animals?
Why not save the lives of animals? We are so keen on keeping humans alive, safe, and well, why not animals too. Particularly the one set on leaving the world forever.
Some animals are vital to others species survival, including humans. If honey bees for example ever became endangered then we would need to do everything in our power to protect them at all cost, because without them humans could even be in major trouble.
And if it humans fault that they are endangered in the first place then we really need to protect them. Like @DarkCEpitome said, Earth isn't just for us. This planet is like no other that we know of. We have such a huge variety of life here. We need to take responsibility for our actions because we know we are already responsible for the extinction of some animal species already.
Why should we protect them? they're going to die of other things anyway, like global warming is not only affecting the humans but the animals/plants as well, so might as well get rid off them beforehand and make money out of their furs or whatever. I mean I can even wear those big furry coats and have a collection of those animals that museums would pay a lot of money to get their hands onto...I don't care if they die! money is all i care about!
Okay so ppl rebut on this please.
I don't know though. I like saving endangered species. *shrug*
Why should we protect them? they're going to die of other things anyway, like global warming is not only affecting the humans but the animals/plants as well, so might as well get rid off them beforehand and make money out of their furs or whatever. I mean I can even wear those big furry coats and have a collection of those animals that museums would pay a lot of money to get their hands onto...I don't care if they die! money is all i care about!
Okay so ppl rebut on this please.
-------------
Well, that argument is extremly vague. I could just say that you are going to die anyways someday so I could just kill you now and make myself a nice looking human skin purse. Oh, that'd be stylish.
Of course their jobs are going to be lost anyway when all the big trees are gone so I'm in favor of protecting the environment now while there is still some left rather than trying to squeeze every last buck out of "resource development".
1. Competition with Humans
2. Loss of Habitat
3. "Medicinal/Magical" uses
4. Novel Uses(tourist souvenirs like elephant tusks)
5. Direct Assault(Recreational Hunting)
6. Introduction to Exotics(a new species is introduced and lacks natural predators in the area and overpopulates and ruins the area's ecosystem)
When unnatural selection occurs a species isn't there to replace its niche and an unbalance in the ecosystem occurs. I believe that we have to be able to realize when a species is going extinct due to the above 6 causes(off the top of my head there may be more, or it may be a bit imprecise) or natural extinction, and we should definitely preserve the ones that belong there before it gets out of hand.
Let me guess - Mammals, primarily. But also birds and reptiles. And if there's an endangered amphibian, you think we should protect that too. Maybe even some fish. Am I missing something?
To be honest, I don't really care (and I doubt you would, either) if an insect species went extinct, or a spider. But they're classified as animals. Endangered tree species? Plants? They don't get their own PSAs because they're not cute and cuddly, nor of the same class as us like polar bears are. The darwinian heirarchy of survival goes like this: Humans want to save themselves as individuals, than themselves as a species first and foremost. Then humans will want to save creatures within their order, then class, then kingdom. Which means apes come before mammals, and mammals come before any other animal, and animals come before any other form of life (like plants, fungi or protists).
Species go extinct every second in the Amazon rain forest. I agree with Mathis that humans shouldn't infringe so much on natural habitats, etc. Little things, we could do. And I will admit, I do feel sorry for the polar bears. I believe that we should protect natural habitats of animals and any other form of unique life, such as the Amazon rain forest.
But at the same time, I recognize that human beings are small in the great scheme of things. Sure, we've done a lot since the industrial revolution to destroy our planet. But when we try to change things for the better, our good intentions are insignificant.
Species will go extinct. That's how life works. One day, humans might even go extinct. And our brains and length we've been alive aren't helpful. Some of our extinct ancestors lived ten times longer than we have, and still died out.
@Cinders
To be honest, I don't really care (and I doubt you would, either) if an insect species went extinct, or a spider. But they're classified as animals. Endangered tree species? Plants? They don't get their own PSAs because they're not cute and cuddly, nor of the same class as us like polar bears are.
Sorry, but I find that irrelevant. If we are causing the species to go extinct, even if it is a type of spider, or bug, we should do everything we can to save it. All animals have some importance in the natural scheme of things, and most species are going extinct because of some kind of human influence, or another. Very little species actually go extinct naturally any more... They go extinct because we destroy their habitat for resources... They go extinct because we kill off their prey... They go extinct because of global warming and climate change... There are many reasons. Plus, basically every species of animal/organism is relevant to the ecological workings of the planet. It's like how James Lovelock described in the Gaia hypothesis - Everything natural in this world is inter-connected and they all work together to keep this planet trying to work naturally.
@Brittanagleefan.
I think that people shouldn't work so hard on keeping pandas from going extinct.
I have only one word for you: Why?
@Next person on the list (you'll know who you are)
I'm on the fence about this. Most of species earth has had are already extinct. Some of them, like the North American horse (as opposed to the mustangs we have now), were extinct without man's influence. Why are we trying to influence it now?
Because, not all species are going extinct naturally any more. Human influence is causing more extinctions now. Because of human influence, in New Zealand, about 25-30% of the native flightless birds went extinct since the 1800's. Funnily enough, it coincides with the time frame of the British arriving to colonise the area.
@jillywinkles.
One argument against it I would say is that it's going against nature to save endangered species--the whole point of natural selection and survival of the fittest is to keep killing things off. Species have been killing each other off since the beginning of time. Humans are just another animal, so it's not abnormal us to kill other animals in the betterment of our own species. That's one argument I guess.
You sound a bit half-hearted about this, really... Or maybe you just aren't that enthusiastic, because you 'like saving endangered species'. Anyway, I'll stop you here, because I see what you are saying, but it is isn't going against nature to save a species that we were causing to die off, anyway. Yes, we do like to kill off species for the betterment of our own, but to do so in this day and age would be actually harming our own species, not saving it.
@adavila.
at least not the government
Please elaborate, as this is the most extremely vague comment I have seen on here. Honestly, what do you mean? You don't want the government to do it? Is it because it would cost money? Or would you rather that privatised companies did it, so`the government wouldn't be spending money on this endeavour? Or, do you just think that a privatised company might care more about the animals?
And if it humans fault that they are endangered in the first place then we really need to protect them. Like @DarkCEpitome said, Earth isn't just for us. This planet is like no other that we know of. We have such a huge variety of life here. We need to take responsibility for our actions because we know we are already responsible for the extinction of some animal species already.
Sign In or join Fanpop to add your comment