Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities

The existence of human beings have brought disasters upon animals and plant life alike unlike ever before, with global temperatures and sea levels rising. General views purport that humans should take responsibility for their actions, not only to save us homo sapiens, but also all life around us. However, would it be sensible to only protect species that are affected by human activities? I believe that is, undoubtedly, not enough; society should work on saving all species, no matter whether they are in danger from extinction due to humans or not.

The most obvious reason to take care of all species is that saving one particular species can benefit others. Food chains are more stable the more intricate they are, thus having a greater variety and number of different animals and planets will help maintain a longer-lasting balance between the predators and prey. Though some animals are not endangered due to human behavior, they can still pose a threat to the survival of their predators should they go extinct. The argument that humans should only take responsibility for their own doing overlooks the purpose of animal preservation–to provide a stable living environment for all animals.

If we choose to only preserve species we see as our responsibility, then we may loose precious sources of life study that can benefit humans as well. For example, in the fictional novel series Artemis Fowl, the protagonists' family falls ill due to a strange sickness that can only be cured by the extraction of the body fluids of a recently extinct mammal. The protagonist was able to find a way to go back in time to save the animal, then save his family. However, without the same powers to go back in time, we would be left helpless should the same situation occur in real life. Though we do not see the use of certain species now, it does not mean that they cannot prove to be invaluable for medical purposes or other contributions meaningful for our society later on.

Some might contend that to save species that would have been lost in the natural process of evolution is unwise. It is because they are unfit to proceed in a new environment that they are not permitted existence. This would be reasonable if human beings did not consider the usage of other life forms as a source of development. Let's say penicillium becomes extinct due to some natural virus. Should we not attempt to preserve penicillium because they are not reasonable? Or should we do our best to save that species and, in turn, save billions of lives?

The motivation behind saving species affected by humans is noble. However, it is not enough for both the benefit of the environment as well as human survival. We should prevent the extinction of all species based on not only our own responsibilities as human beings now, but look into the future so that we may make greater use of life.