Its funny when you see animals being given habitats and fed their fill when there are humans that are dying due to hunger. Do these people honestly believe that the amount of money they spend on preserving these creatures is rightfully spent? Especially when this money could have gone to starving children in the first place.
Natural selection. When we (top of the food chain) started using animals for help with farming and everything else, we used what was useful and slaughtered or disposed of what was not. As crude as it is, that's natural selection now that humans are involved. Some species must be extinct because they have proved to be ineffective and useless. I'm pretty happy dinosaurs aren't roaming around right now, not sure what good they would do us.
Plants and animals hold medicinal, agricultural, ecological, commercial and aesthetic/recreational value. Endangered species must be protected and saved so that future generations can experience their presence and value. So many species are all responsible for useful medications that help humans immensely. Animal species of all kinds are part of the foundation for a healthy ecosystem.
People should save endangered species because it can cause a chain reaction. If one animal is extinct more and more will too because the food chain is breaking apart!
Also, every animal has a purpose to live! Bats and hedgehogs keep the bug level at a good rate so we won't get bitten all the time, and maybe even get a disease! Bees keep the plants pollinated. And many, many more animals have a reason to be here!
Humans will one day be extinct, it is not an if, it is when and that when is an inevitability. So what will happen to all of these species we are trying to artificially preserve once we depart on the great stage of life on Earth?
It is sad that humans are so mortified by the idea of their own demise that they have to compensate by trying to preserve what we are, by our very nature, destroying.
Natural selection always wins, species appear and disappear in the blink of an eye, what makes the panda more special than the dodo? Nothing other than the fact it is "cute". If it can't change, then it never will. It is futile to try an hope that it will.
Why waste our resources on this when we could put it towards helping our own species (which after all are the only ones that we should be concerned about from an evolutionary point of view).
There are natural cycles and extinction is an incredibly important one, potentially the most important - remember, we wouldn't be here without any of the "big 5" that happened prior to the anthropocene epoch.
Think about the science behind it, apply a geological timescale, take the statistic from M.J Benton - >95% of all species that have lived are now extinct - then attempt to answer no to this question from a logical stand point. If anyone says "we rely on other species so doing nothing is counter intuitive to our own survival", this is incredibly true, but we are the most adaptive and innovative species on the planet right now - we find replacements as and when we need them.
Efforts to save endangered species are a waste of resources and human effort. It is not going to matter in the end what lengths are taken to preserve, what is meant to survive, will. It all comes down to survival of the fittest. It is an ever changing world out there and the reason that animals need help from humans to survive is because of human intervention in the first place. We have invaded their land and have taken their resources. We have showed no mercy. We are the sole reason that they are becoming extinct. The world is always changing and evolving. You either adapt with the times or whither away and die out. In the end when the resources are gone and used up it, no one will survive and the animals will most certainly not be the ones to blame. We should concentrate our efforts on conservation, recycling, and coexisting with the world around us. Evolving species throughout the years have never needed help from man to survive. It is because of us that they are going extinct. If we focus our efforts more on changing our ways, the fittest ones will need no help from us to survive.
I may say that we should intervene with the endangered species, but some species we should leave to boost the population again. For example; the cameo leopard is about to die, there are only around 35 left in the wild, but the reason there are only around 35 left is because we are destroying their natural environment.
Saying that some species have almost become extinct because of us and we need to help them get back on their feet again.
If a meteor strikes tomorrow, don't worry. As history shows, new species will emerge and thrive. Efforts to save uncompetitive species is not only wasteful but futile. Humanity might be destroyed by their own undoing or by that fateful piece of stray crap from the sky, but neither humanity nor intelligence is the ultimate goal of gene propagation. The cycle of species survival, creation, destruction goes on ad infinitum till the end of time.
All said, we still need to wipe off species ( or even harmful ideologies - an altogether separate species that live in the conscious world) that directly threaten us, like HIV virus etc for self preservation.
When these animals are gone, that's just more room for us to populate. Heck, if we do well enough, humans may never become extinct! Or we'll be in a different galaxy or something. That would be pretty cool, in my opinion. GALAXY ATTACK! *hits you with narwhal sword because I'm so awesome*
Well if we let these animals die, it would be a chain reaction. Think about it, if an animal that only ate the endangered animal, and it went extinct, that animal would also die out because it wouldn't have enough food. Another reason that also relates to food is that if that species was a predator, its prey's population wouldn't be as controlable and that would result of overpopulation. Everything tends to rely on eachother, so if one dies, its a rippling effect.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Evolution loves extinction more than it love u or me , its easy to write , easy to read , but its hard to believe. At the dinosaur 's era, they extinct and then the world' s most dominate animal had extinct . Then apes evolved and became humans and now we human are the most dominating species in the Earth.I believe that after extinction of some species, other animals will evolve to adapt new environments in order to survive , and the whole ecosystem will develop into a higher diversity of it.
There are multiple reasons why animals go extinct the one I am referring to in my argument is human causes. Human actions and overpopulation have threatened and destroyed many species. As the cause of these humans should be responsible for restoring the species back to their natural state. Humans are not special and human life is not more important than that of other creatures. Along those lines I feel the human population be controlled and that they should not be allowed to breed as freely as they do.
Endangered species don't need help, throughout time species go extinct, just naturally, and there's always a replacement in line for them. For example, why would humans save a species of beetle that does the exact same job as another species of beetle? Next, it isn't the humans job to save all endangered species, we might be the only ones capable of doing so, but that doesn't mean we need to. Humans have something important called currency, and it costs money to save endangered species, I'm in California, I know this all about these programs that tax us.
Most people think that humans are better then animals and that we don't deserve to die an animals do but think of this where the evolved form of ape's so I think animals live's matter to so people should try as hard as they can to save those pore endangered animals.
Natural selection may be the key form in nature, but what of the animals were killing. That isn't natural selection that is murder! Once we lose these animals they will never come back, and that amazing species will forever be lost to this world! Do you want that in your conscience? No, so we need to help save these animals before it's too late!
If we stop protecting the then it will disrupt nature and its ways. Say if we killed all the Sharks then the fish would over populate throwing of the corse of nature. If we did stop protecting them then everything would eventully go extinct including us. How many humans in the world want to be the last of your kind and then killed off be some selfish low life. No one wants that and neither do the animals. Who's with me? SAVE THE ENDANGERED ANIMALS!!!!
Studies show that there are more endangered animals than nature intended. The reason why is humans and you yes people are just as bad as the people who are hurting endangered animals. We need to protect these majestic creatures. When you harm an animal that is endangered you hurt the ecosystem of the area that animal lives in.
Wouldn't you want your children to see all the animals that were present in your lifetime? Efforts at saving endangered species are helping our environment by saving these animals. Sometimes too much money and effort is spent, but in the end it all makes sense as the species that might have gotten extinct make it into the next generation.
The philosophical case that it is 'nature's way' to allow species to become extinct ignores the fact that, in most cases, extinctions or endangered extinctions in modern times have been, or are being caused by the human species. Not so much 'nature's way' as 'the human way'. The so called 'of no use' argument is narrow, biased and subjective; ultimately, every single form of life on this planet is of no 'use', if one logically follows that paradigm to the 'nth' degree.
We could counter the 'yes' point of view, thus: We are part of 'true nature', as is any thing we do, so when humans have the means and knowhow to save a species, to actively advocate an end be put to any such effort would be an attempt to interfere with a natural process, albeit a human one. Despite some appearances, humans have an innate urge to preserve life. Also, it would be no more 'unnatural' for humans to intervene to save a species than have been their interventions (most of which have been unthinking and untintentional) which have lead to most species becoming endangered.
We've seen some of the reasoning of the 'yes' side, most of which is nothing more than a thinly veiled objection to the cost. We know that we are dominating the natural environment to the point that other species are being out competed by us for a place to live, so if we accept that we should give up trying to reverse the trend of extinctions we mainly cause, there is only one way for this to go. The human population is now running away dangerously, rather like an unfettered virus. Eventually that must be controlled, one way or another, and if we are not going to destroy almost all other forms of life on this planet other than the most basic, we must face up to our need to act, regardless of 'cost', and the sooner the better, the lower that cost. We know this, yet now we see some trying to abrogate our culpability as the root cause of mass extinctions.
It's true that every single species on this planet is ultimately doomed. However, if we adopt a philosohpy of throwing in the towel, instead of doing all we can to preserve the beauty and diversity of life on this planet for as long as we possibly can, we knowingly condemn all future life, along with our descendants, to a much starker, less enriched way of life than our own, and that is a very selfish philosophy. Imagine how that sort of attitude will be viewed in, say, 500 years from now. How we will be regarded once we are, as individuals, extinct, is hopefully important, and if that is so, we must continue to do all we can to preserve all species.