Endangered Animals: Are They Worth Saving?

Pinkie-Dawn

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
    • 9,525
    Posts
    12
    Years
    I felt the need to make this thread after reading this blog about the northern white rhinos. Animals become threatened to extinction through loss of habitat, overhunting, and disease, and we humans are trying our best to save these endangered species in order to keep the ecosystem at balance. However, after various educational documentaries about these animals and use of commercials to warn viewers, these animals are still decreasing in population. When I was watching this video regarding instagram becoming a new tool for killing rhinos, this guy from its comment section wrote this:

    Spoiler:

    This raises an excellent question: Are animals becoming endangered due to human activity part of natural selection? Humans in the past has wiped out entire species before, due to being the most dominant species on the planet, from dodo birds to bisons to Tasmanian tigers, and now rhinos, tigers, and elephants are chosen to be wiped out by us. Once the big predators are gone by us, we're forced to take their place to kill their prey for them through use of weaponry in order to keep their population in control. So is there no hope to saving these endangered animals for failing to adapt to our environment, or is this another reason to frown upon humanity as the biggest scum on the Earth?
     
    I feel a bit mixed on this.

    From what I gathered, this guys says that allowing the killing of rhinos won't have any significant impact on the food chain, and as bad as it is to say, he could be right. I did a quick Google search to see exactly where rhinos rest in the food chain of life and found that rhinos eat mainly grass and, on occasion, soil. The only "major" impact I saw was that fleas/ticks feed off rhinos and tick birds eat the ticks off. This probably wouldn't be a major loss since fleas/ticks can stick to just about anything and feed off that, thus continuing the chain just with a different animal. Lions were also said to eat unhealthy/small rhinos, but lions also eat numerous other animals, so again, no significant impact.

    From all this, I somewhat agree with him in a way. I mean, nature is supposed to be adaptable. We've wiped out other species before and nothing dramatic happened from what I can tell. It's sad to see an entire species wiped out, but if it ever has to come to this, I don't think it'd have a lot of negative effects nor would it mess-up the chain of life.
     
    All species are worth saving. Yes, some have more impact in the environment than others, but all of them have an impact. And most in a way you could not imagine.

    Rhinos do not affect the food chain directly. The effects of their disappearance won't appear suddenly, it will take some time. However, the effects on Africa's grasslands might be catastrophic. Rhinos are "gardeners". They graze. They spread the grass's seeds and fertilize the soil. Stepping on the soil prepares it for new grass to grow.

    If rhino's disappear, added to the diminishing population of elephants, Africa's grasslands would soon become forests. Gnu's, zebras, some antelopes, cheetahs and many, many more species would probably go extinct. An entire ecosystem is at risk.



    This video clearly shows how one species can change the ecosystem.
     
    I felt the need to post this:

    Simple. Just legalise the killing of people, let the murderers have at it, and the problem will soon go away by itself. Yeah, so then the humanitarians will quit their ******** because there are no people left to whine over. Problem solved. Worked for the dodo birds, you don't see anyone making videos about saving those do you? Fix'd. If people are so few in number for you to worry and/or call them endangered or whatever alarmist ******* you humanitarians are usually trying to spin with stories like this, then how can eliminating them entirely possibly **** up the food chain, or significantly impact anything else? You can't have it both ways you hippie *******.
    Click to expand...

    That sounds nice.
     
    What? "Lets legalize poaching because some people can't stop themselves from killing a dying species!!" It's not as if poaching is necessary?? There are people out there that would rather legalize something that should remain illegal instead of attempting to stop people from breaking that law???
     
    Altairis said:
    What? "Lets legalize poaching because some people can't stop themselves from killing a dying species!!" It's not as if poaching is necessary?? There are people out there that would rather legalize something that should remain illegal instead of attempting to stop people from breaking that law???
    Click to expand...

    While I agree with your general point, I don't think the argument "it shouldn't be legalized because it isn't necessary" is very good. There are many things that aren't necessary that are legal - we shouldn't make watching TV illegal just because it's not necessary, for example.

    As far as the topic at large, this is a really interesting question! I think, if we even leave out the fact that they're living creatures and the complex ecology, endangered animals are still relevant to our society, in a historical/educational way. We already spend a lot of money restoring old houses and creating museums, so it makes sense to spend a lot of money nourishing animals that are unique and contribute more to the knowledge of human beings. We often find knowledge through animals, by watching them and creating tools to imitate them, and there's no telling which animal will inspire an innovator or when; the blowfish has existed for quite a long time, but Mercedes-Benz is just now realizing that its shape is surprisingly aerodynamic and imitating it for a concept car. If the blowfish had been extinct, that car never would have existed, as the blowfish doesn't look aerodynamic and it's only through watching them move that you can come to that realization.

    A lot of the reason to preserve endangered animals is because of results we can't predict, which is why the argument is difficult to make. Sure, we may be getting along just fine without a species in the wild, maybe its role in the ecology of its habitat was small and taken over by another species, and we could do without it. Then we find out that there's a fungus that can only grow on the skin of this species. No big deal, right? Penicillin was a fungus. This is a hypothetical and penicillin doesn't grow on the skin of an almost-extinct animal, but you get my point - there are so many tiny parts of nature that can help humans in such unbelievable ways that allowing an animal to die out can destroy that potential help in ways we can't even imagine. There's a drug that was only discovered by examining the bark of the Pacific yew tree that is a highly effective treatment for ovarian cancer; what if we had allowed the animal to go extinct that spread the seeds of that tree, thus that tree died out before we looked at it and found that compound?

    The overall point I'm trying to make here is that saving endangered species is not merely a matter of being a tree-hugger or thinking every species is a gift from God or thinking white rhinos are cute and killing them is sad. It's a matter of human practicality, which tangible benefits to ourselves.
     
    Last edited:
    Ecosystems are extremely complex things. I think it's worth the effort to try and prevent extinction insofar as it helps maintain the status quo in nature.
     
    Natural selections is great and all, but there's never really been an animal like humans, who have the resources and somewhat the desire to kill endangered species specifically. It's not that we only want them because of what they provide, it's in large part the fact that many people will pay top dollar for rare animals. We really shouldn't count humans paying for the extinction of a species as natural selection, it's like if we were to accept the idea of making the Earth uninhabitable because it's technically a species of animal that caused it.
     
    Of course endangered animals are worth saving, especially considering we, humanity as a whole are the cause of their extinction and endangerment. Of course we're not to blame for the endangerment for all animals, but a very high majority of endangered species is due to humanity either hunting them or our pollution.

    Those who debate natural selection and that as a superior species we have the right, no the privilege of being the dominant specie and proving this to other species, well quite frankly those people sicken me and are moronic. As a superior specie we have the ability and the resources to maintain a healthy planet for all animals, insects, plants, the lot. Unfortunately the high majority of the human population disregard the importance of this.

    We're slowly but surely destroying the circle of life.
     
    Yizzay said:
    Those who debate natural selection and that as a superior species we have the right, no the privilege of being the dominant specie and proving this to other species, well quite frankly those people sicken me and are moronic. As a superior specie we have the ability and the resources to maintain a healthy planet for all animals, insects, plants, the lot. Unfortunately the high majority of the human population disregard the importance of this.
    Click to expand...

    This is a good example of superiority complex. Imo, the whole debate about natural selection is just an excuse for us to continue our activities. For example, global warming is blamed for causing the ice caps to melt, but go back to basic science for a second. CO2 is a gas that traps heat, and through our activities, we release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere through deforestation, burning fossil fuels, transportation, etc. To say that humans do not have an affect on the environment is foolish because the truth is we do. Humans just do not like to to blame themselves.

    It's kinda the same thing as the whole, "we have the right because we are the dominant species" debate. The thing is, people just don't care about an entire specie dying off unless it effects them. Remember when people were talking about bees dying mysteriously? Well, people really only cared because a good number of the foods we eat are pollinated by bees. If, for example, pigs were on the brink of extinction, most people would only care because pork is a dietary staple. That being said, humans really do not have the right to kill off an entire species. We share the world with hundreds of other creatures and they too have the right to live.
     
    Last edited:
    All endangered (or at least threatened) species should be protected and saved.

    I read an article several months ago about how lions might end up on the Endangered Species list soon. I cannot remember where I found it, though..

    EDIT: Apparently, I found something on Facebook that sad ONE elephant is poached ever FIFTEEN minutes! That is just... awful....
     
    Majestic Electric said:
    This is a good example of superiority complex. Imo, the whole debate about natural selection is just an excuse for us to continue our activities. For example, global warming is blamed for causing the ice caps to melt, but go back to basic science for a second. CO2 is a gas that traps heat, and through our activities, we release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere through deforestation, burning fossil fuels, transportation, etc. To say that humans do not have an affect on the environment is foolish because the truth is we do. Humans just do not like to to blame themselves.

    It's kinda the same thing as the whole, "we have the right because we are the dominant species" debate. The thing is, people just don't care about an entire specie dying off unless it effects them. Remember when people were talking about bees dying mysteriously? Well, people really only cared because a good number of the foods we eat are pollinated by bees. If, for example, pigs were on the brink of extinction, most people would only care because pork is a dietary staple. That being said, humans really do not have the right to kill off an entire species. We share the world with hundreds of other creatures and they too have the right to live.
    Click to expand...
    Not really. I don't see why they have any more right to live than the bacteria and fungi and such unless they're sufficiently intelligent and aware (something that's a bit hard to prove at this point). You're right, we only care as far as it effects us. And that's as it should be; the problem is that, like I said, ecosystems can be complex and letting entire species die off can come back to bite us in ways we didn't anticipate. We do need to protect endangered species, but not out of some misplaced sense of morality, we need to protect them because the consequences of not doing so can be bad for us.
     
    As humans, we are called by God to take care of the earth and all it's animals.

    Why don't they breed all the endangered animals, and tell the poachers to take a chill pill. Wait ten years, and they have all the rhinos they want.
     
    BadPokemon said:
    Why don't they breed all the endangered animals, and tell the poachers to take a chill pill. Wait ten years, and they have all the rhinos they want.
    Click to expand...

    What makes you think "telling the poachers to take a chill pill" would work? There are already official laws against them and they still do it. What is your plan for reducing poaching?
     
    Oryx said:
    What makes you think "telling the poachers to take a chill pill" would work? There are already official laws against them and they still do it. What is your plan for reducing poaching?
    Click to expand...

    Stricter laws and punishments could work. I don't think so. They could work out some kind of agreement with them like let the rhinos recover, and then they can kill as many as they want.

    As for the person above oryx's post. It won't work. I know. I just have my reasoning for are they worth saving just like anybody else's. :)
     
    BadPokemon said:
    Stricter laws and punishments could work. I don't think so. They could work out some kind of agreement with them like let the rhinos recover, and then they can kill as many as they want.
    Click to expand...

    You can't "work out an agreement" with the "poachers". There isn't some sort of "Poacher's Union" that we can just go talk to and flesh out an agreement for them to stop killing rhinos. You have to understand the reasons why people poach in the first place: trophy hunting, selling skins / other parts of the animal, food, among many. It is not in their interest whatsoever to make any "agreement" on reducing the amounts of animals killed.

    As for the person above oryx's post. It won't work. I know. I just have my reasoning for are they worth saving just like anybody else's. :)
    Click to expand...

    You can have your reasoning, but it does you no good to provide no background for your reasoning...
     
    I'm not 100% on the laws of poaching, and without a doubt they would vary throughout the world. But there should be a set standard throughout world in regards to poaching. The death penalty and no will or testimony to those caught taking part in any form of poaching. Also, any known associates of the poacher should be held liable and will receive a sentence of murder-animal-cruelty combined. So pretty much life imprisonment for all known associates.

    Sounds good to me :cool:
     
    The issue with poaching is that its hard to identify point-source threats. We know that the animal populations are decreasing, and we know poaching is a large part of that. But, it is hard to identify the specific individuals who are doing it. Increased poaching laws or punishment would be ineffective because there is not really a large motivation for developing nations (where a large amount of these endangered animals live) to fund an agency to enforce poaching legislation. Additionally, poaching can provide a very easy and lucrative method for the poverty-stricken citizens of these countries.

    A poaching article on panda.org says,
    "The value of a rhino horn in illegal trade is probably 100 times the average earnings of a villager living next to them," explains Christy Williams who leads our work on Asian elephants and rhinos. "It makes poaching a coveted money-making opportunity.""

    It begs the question - would a man want to watch his children starve and live a poor, unfulfilled life, or take the life of an animal that means nothing to him to feed his family and provide for them? Of course, this would only be one case of poaching, but its such a multifaceted issue the creation of no-questions-asked international law would not be very effective.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top