I've been known in the past to question the validity of species conservation at the expense of everyday people who wish only to utilize their land. Conservation is all well and good, but there is so much unused land in the world I question the motives of groups like the EPA, specifically, and PETA. But that's not to say I find fault will all such groups. Greenpeace, I feel, has the right of it in their fight against whaling. Even concerns about over-fishing and environmental conditions that lead to so-called 'dead-zones' have merit-- to me, at least.
So what can I say about Harry the pygmy hippo? Adorable... and the latest edition to a critically endangered species. I wonder sometimes whether we tend to care more for our own wants and needs, that the needs of others often dwindle in importance.
God gave Adam the garden to 'dress it and to keep it', or to cultivate and guard it. I believe we should, where and whenever possible, weigh the needs of the animal kingdom when deciding our progress forward. Are we enlarged or diminished by the loss a species in a given area? The answer is obvious when talking about extinction: we are diminished. But habitat is important. And there's nothing to say that some species can't be relocated. We do it everyday.
Still, some species cannot be moved. And it is then that we must consider ways in which to live with them, rather than force their extinction merely for our convenience.
4 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mainly, I've over 99% of all the animal species ever existing in the planet's history have gone extinct. At least ten were judged to have gone extinct during the past decade.
Some of the animals, like the African Black Rhino, seem to be merely slightly distinct from other animals of its kind to the extent that this particular variety's demise seems less than noteworthy. It would almost be like there no longer being Spaniards, which is possible in the next few generations. This seems more like a general pity rather than any devastating consequence of great import to the world.
There have also been an almost equal number of new species discovered. This suggests that extinction is less of a problem and more a natural function of nature that is, to some extent, unavoidable.
I would not support behaviors that accelerate the extinction of a species, and I agree that should our presence, or intended presence, in an area threaten an already threatened species, extra consideration is a good idea. But I think a true measure would almost always favor man's presence or need for the land over that of the threatened species, if the loss of the species cannot be determined to have a true negative impact on the world.
To some degree, I believe that the anxiety of some regarding the potential extinction of a species is more a concern over the aesthetic implications of losing that animal. For example, to no longer be able to see a tiger would be a sad thing, but I don't know how it would be a bad thing.
"Mainly I've read that over 99% of all the animal species..."