Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the
expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being.
Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in
money and jobs, to save endangered species.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely align with your own position and
explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you
should address both of the views presented.
With the growth influence of environmentalism, many consider the conservation of endangered species
a moral obligation that humankind must acknowledge and fulfill. Some even argue that society must
strive to save every plant and animal species at any cost, while there is a conflicting view.
Society should not, such a view insists, expend too many resources, which could otherwise be used
to create wealth and jobs, trying to save endangered species. My stance is slightly more aligned
with the former, though my argument contains the specific perequisite that society must save
endangered soecies only if a species' extinction would lead to economic loss greater than the cost
of saving that species.
Before elaborating on my reasoning, it is necessary to address a number of potential objections
based on the nature of my view. I expect initial emotional responses to likely be negative from the
public. Environmentalists, for example, would strongly condemn my position and argue that driving a
species to extination is a crime against nature, since every species is equal and humans are not
entitled to slaughter other species. However, extinction is not new to nature. It has happened
throughout Earth's long geological history, long before modern humans occupied every continent
except Antarcica. Geological discoveries inform us of five major extinction events in the last 400
million years; in this short geological period, more than three quarters of life on Earth was wiped
out. Consequently, human beings are not morally bound to preserve the status quo of Earth's current
biological diversity. We should not save every species without considering their socioeconomic
consequences.
This does not necessatily mean we should never take action to preserve endangered species. If the
resulting loss from a species' extinction exceeds the cost of saving it, we should definitely
protect it. Consider the following three examples. We appreciate pandas so much that the loss of
these species would be regarded as a heavy emotional loss. We support the protection of raptors,
such as eagles and falcons, because their extinction would allow rodents to proliferate and result
in significant crop losses. And some endangered species have genetic and research value, which could
lead to cures for diseases like cancer. The definition of loss in these cases encompasses broader
social consequences rather than being solely financial.
Another reason we should save a species is that it provides a relatively objective and measuerable
benchmark to assess our policy. What would happen if we spared no expense to save every endangered
species? What if the resources expended saving them could be used to save refugees of wars and
famine? It may be acceptable to deem humans and other species as equal but when they are in conflict
should other species take priority over human life? Assuming responsibility for the protection of
all species is dangerous and violates basic human principles, which are the foundation of modern
civilization. Therefore, we must utilize reasonable methods when deciding whether or not to save a
species from extinction.