Extinctions

Extinctions

Extinctions have occurred over time since life on earth began. Human activities have been known to accelerate this notable headache in the years that have passed and more so in this modern age. Currently, the rates of extinction have skyrocketed, and scientists say that it has reached crisis proportions. Many controversies are surrounding the topic of endangered species. The economic and social costs of complying with regulations that ensure the preservation of some of these species are a bone of contention for many. So, let us take a look at the controversies, the ethical dilemma, and the views of people on whether the preservation of endangered species is worth it or not.

ESA is the most powerful and effective law that ensures the preservation of these species. Over time their work has not been easy as questions have arisen on whether it is beneficial to preserve some of these animals or plants. Since many controversies are surrounding it and the act is also under reauthorization, it has brought the need for research on the important questions that continuously surround the topic on the preservation of endangered species. The billion-dollar question is whether it is beneficial to contain the rapid extinction of some of these animals and plants or to let go as they do not have many benefits anyway.

There are two substantially distinctive ethical values surrounding this controversy, extrinsic and intrinsic values. Extrinsic are the ones that place the cost of a given thing based on what they give up. Pragmatists employ the notion as to whether a particular species is beneficial in the help of maintaining the eco-system, provision of food or medicine, or just by its aesthetic value. Is it worth it? In as much as it is initially upsetting if you take an in-depth look at the whole situation, is there value in preserving some cute pandas or helping out the millions of people facing real-life problems.” It is estimated that it will cost $76 billion to protect threatened land animals” (Cossins,1)

Intrinsic values, on the other hand, do not refer to the purpose a species has but stems from sheer respect of life even if it does not have immediate gain to others. These kinds of values rest on the inherent nature of humans that every organism deserves a life devoid of suffering. Everyone has a different take on the matter, but in the end, it all goes down to how they feel about a particular species. Most people see morality in preserving a species, as in the case of the gorillas in Central Africa. It is an innate nature in humans to protect, and that is why many advocate for the preservation of threatened species.

This whole controversy has presented compelling arguments on both positive and negative effects. “Mining companies, oil companies, and large-scale agricultural operations all threaten vulnerable species to a certain degree, by nature of their extractive activities, and development of previously untouched areas of land.” (Whittaker, 1). The continued destruction of the environment by significant companies presents adverse effects on the natural habitat of most organisms, which consequently results in their exhaustion.

Stipulations that protect almost vanished organisms have positive effects as they help protect animals, which would have faced extinction. It calls to attention the issues that may cause the degradation of natural habitat and the necessary mechanisms that should be put in place to ensure the preservation of these places. That provides time to prevent the extinction of these animals. Addressing this topic also avails the opportunity for economic gain from wildlife, better environmental management techniques, and the protection of plants and animals, which may provide a cure to some diseases.

Regardless of whether these controversies surrounding the extinction of some species have some positive effects, it also comes with a basket of adverse effects. For one, it is painfully costly to preserve some of these animals. Despite the lofty goals of most of the advocates for species whose existence is threatened, it seems that it is an expensive venture that no one is willing to foot the bill for. Additionally, some activists take advantage of the whole situation and advocate for the closure of significant projects which would otherwise have brought in much income.

In recent times, this controversy has received an enormous blowback from the Trump administration as he is clearly against such efforts and has an adverse reaction to all the noise surrounding endangered species. As of now, it is easy to remove a threatened animal from the list of endangered species. “Overall, the revised rules appear very likely to clear the way for new mining, oil and gas drilling, and development in areas where protected species live” (Friedman). Critically, it has made it easier for mining, logging activities, and the like to go on without much scrutiny. With that kind of thinking, it seems that the war on saving endangered species will be derailed for several years as it is clear some people are not bent on saving wildlife at a cost with no immediate benefit for them.

These findings suggest that whereas there are very many people bent on providing solutions for all the endangered species, it is clear that it is an uphill task. Most people, after considering the facts deem it unimportant to save endangered species. Most of them back up their thoughts with tangible proof that it is imprudent to save these animals as the costs are of staggering amounts. The general public is mostly concerned about posterity, and in as much as ESA dissuades practices that deplete the environment, companies still go on with their projects.

In conclusion, there are very many endangered species out there. However, it begs the question, is it worth it? In the long run, the cost and benefit of saving an animal should be calculated to see whether, indeed, it is beneficial to preserve it or if it’s much profitable to let it disappear from the face of the earth.