All of these articles on whether or not we should give up trying to save a species make valid points. As I read the headlines I instantly thought that it was crazy to debate whether or not the panda species should be saved, of course they should be. However, as I continued to read I began to question my opinion more and more to the point where I am no longer leaning one way or the other. Obviously we want to save pandas, a huge reason being because they are so cute, but also because they are such a known animal and no one wants to see them go extinct. On the other hand, if they will eventually go extinct in the future, regardless of our efforts now, the millions of dollars a year being spent to save them could be put into anything else and be more useful. It is obvious we can not save every endangered species but no one wants to be that person to decide where our efforts should be focused. It just comes down to basic economics, people face trade-offs.
I found both perspectives of saving an endangered species quite interesting. After reading and interpreting such strong support, I still remained "on the fence" about the issue. The fact that they brought some "ethics" into play (whether or not one species is more important to save than another) really opened up my eyes. In my opinion, that isn't fair. We all know panda's are cute, but perhaps this is one of the main reasons people are so concerned with saving them. Ask yourself: would you have the same concern for saving a less appealing animal such as a fruit bat? Or an insect persay? Most likely not. Overall, this made me realize that sometimes emotional appeal comes into play when people are "for" saving an endangered species, while on the other hand, people who are "against" the action use ethics to state their point.
All of these articles were very interesting to say the least. I feel that endangered animals should not be protected just for a "good Samaritan" award. I think that there value to the ecosystem they live in with relation to how it benefits humans is the best approach at determining whether they are WORTH preserving (it costs tax dollars etc. to do this). This should be done through scientific study. If they are indeed pivotal to it, for example if they keep algae levels down so kelp forests (human consumption) can exist then they can be considered worth saving in my opinion. If any trophic level in their ecosystem is used by humans and they are key to preserving abundance of this then they are worth preserving. If however they have no importance to their ecosystem and that of humans then they are NOT worth preserving and we should just let their inability to compete eliminate them.
Post a Comment