Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take

Man has always had a reliance on their environment to survive. This intimate interaction between Man and his environment has led to a sensitivity about how to preserve his environment. One aspect of particular concern, is the preservation of the animal kingdom. Over the years, many factors such as climate change, anthropogenic activities and so on, have led to the extinction of many species. This has led to the question, what should Man do? Many have suggested that the human race should only focus on repairing the effects of their actions on the animal kingdom, which means all other activities that might lead to the extinction of animal species is none of our business. To this prompt, I disagree. I have three points that are the fortress on which my position is built.

The Earth’s ecosystem since the beginning of its existence has always catered for the survival of the species habiting its environment. Carnivores have meat, herbivores have plants and plants have photosynthesis. This creates an order in the food chain, where every animal has everything it needs within its environment to survive and thrive. The right temperature, food, habitation and so on, has been designed to ensure the survival of each specie. However, Man is the only abnormally in this chain. The intelligence of Man that is absent in other animals has made it the sole propagator of imbalance in the ecosystem. For instance, factors such as climate variability which ordinarily is beyond the control any specie on earth, is being heavily influenced by Man’s activities. No animal other than Man, has built systems that can effectively affect the order of events on earth. Thus, saying Man should only focus on correcting his mistakes is ambiguous at best, as we cannot really define what effects our actions is causing on our environment. Many effects are unprecedented and foreign, which means we have never experienced them before. How then can we sufficiently grasp their causes? There are too many possibilities for the cause of these event, many of which are too complex to absolve Man of any participation in its cause. Therefore, saying Man should focus on repairing animal extinction only caused by his actions is not feasible and might even lead to Man not doing anything at all to rectify the situation. Blame shifting and unaccountability will govern these decisions.

Furthermore, the effects of animal extinction can be catastrophic to the existence of mankind. Why then should we ignore these events simply because we think we did not cause it? I believe that regardless of who is responsible for the cause of animal extinction, the possible effects on the human race should spur into action regardless. For instance, essential animal produce that are used in the production of certain drugs will no longer be available, this would mean that humans suffering from the ailment curable by this produce will be left to suffer or even worse, die. Carnivores that depend on this animal to survive will most likely be endangered as well, which means that not only one but possibly two or more animals will become unavailable to Man. This will cause scarcity of food choices available to different societies and might lead to famine. For instance, in riverine communities, their main food for consumption are sea foods for water bodies around them, if for some natural reason, fishes in these bodies start becoming extinct, the community will experience a heavy downturn of food availability which would lead to hyper-inflation and hunger. Many will die and many more will suffer the consequences. Therefore, it is not logical to ignore the extinction of animals simply because we are not the cause of it.
The position of many supporters of this policy is that how can we be sure that we can correct extinctions if they are not man-made? Since we have no idea about this, and we have limited resources at our disposal, expending such resources on frivolous activities will be ludicrous. We should focus all our resources on things we know we can solve since we are the ones who caused them. While I understand the limitation of resources in our quest to solve the extinction debacle, a counter argument is how sure are we that we can solve the problems we caused? Not all problems caused by man has been solved since their occurrence. For instance, Man caused the tearing of the ozone layer which eventually is causing climate change, despite the role Man has played in the events leading to climate change, he has not been able to revert it. All scientific expenditure bear the risk of futility. Ignoring what we did not cause does not guarantee a hundred per cent success rate. Therefore, we should tackle as many extinction challenges as possible regardless of their cause.

In conclusion, while this policy might be aimed at conserving the resources of Man and focusing on them on repairing our mistakes. It is not going to be an effective solution if the aim is to ameliorate the effects of animal extinction on the human race. Whether extinction is caused by anthropogenic activities or by natural order, it is still our responsibility to preserve our means of survival. Animal are pivotal to our survival, hence, we must do all within our power to contribute to the survival.