With regard to the first argument, the extinction of a species of flora / fauna is a natural occurrence that is necessary for the maintenance of balance in the world. Such argument is supported by an evolutionary expert, Muneeb Baig. According to Baig (2002), the protection of endangered species from probable extinction is unhealthy in the sense that it is an act of interference to natures way of upholding the natural disposition of things (Baig, 2002).
Such a stand is not cruel, nor is it misguided, as most environmental advocates might propose. In fact, the statement is a practical application of the (in)famous theory of natural selection by Charles Darwin, wherein he purports that the extinction of specie is neither random nor wrong because it is an expression of the species inability to survive in its current environment. Therefore Natural selection is exactly what is happening to the endangered species at present.
It may be argued that Darwins theory is acceptable only in so far as extinction due to natural causes is concerned. But what is a natural cause for extinction? In response to this anticipated objection, let us digest the argumentation and its logic. If causes attributed to man can not be considered natural then it may be said that at present, no cause will ever be considered a natural cause If there is no natural cause then, one can say that all incidents of extinction are unnatural.
Following this line of argument we must then conclude that Darwins theory is therefore false, since it is implied in his work that change is constant in the environment, and with every change there is a species that is at the brink of extinction because it cannot adapt to the change. However, Darwins theory of evolution has been proven to be true; hence, what is the most logical line of reasoning one can pursue? Since man is a species, his activities, albeit identified by environmentalists as the cause of the endangerment of species, can be construed as the natural cause of extinction of certain plants and animals.
Hence, in Causes of Endangerment written by Lauren Kurpis (1997), the three major factors / causes (with a fourth one being a conjunction of minor factors such as pollution and limitations in distribution) advocates of specie protection have determined as causes of extinction due to man, namely: habitat destruction, overexploitation, and introduction of exotic species, are not wrong or evil but manifestations of the adaptation the human specie has undertaken and is undertaking. It is survival of the fittest at its finest (Kurpis, Causes of Endangerment, 1997).
The second argument of this paper utilizes the report of the US Government Accountability Office (2006) entitled Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species are Largely Unknown. Succinctly put, the second point against the protection of endangered species is that time and resources which may and should have been channeled to other causes are poured into an advocacy that has no time limit and has no definite budget. Such an investment is an obvious waste of resources, resources that could have benefited the greater good.
In the report, dated April 6, 2006, the GAO specified that under the Endangered Species Act, all recovery plans are required to, incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable: (1) site specific management actions, (2) time and cost estimates for completing site specific management actions, and (3) recovery criteria (p. 11). Of the 107 plans under scrutiny by the GAO, an overwhelming 73 plans had no definite time-line relative to recovery of the endangered species they represent, and of the remaining 34, 27 indicated a timetable of 10-50 years before the species are recovered (p.
18). Moreover, US Government Accountability Office (2006) added, Aside from that, 87 of the 107 plans failed to indicate cost estimates (p. 19); with the cost here excluding other financial concerns which may be attributed to the protection of endangered species. These facts present the alarming reality in the realm of endangered specie recovery, reality which points to evident wastage of resources with unpredictable results. It is one thing to commit to a cause; funding a futile exercise of human sympathy to the brink of foolishness is another.
The third and final argument of this paper states that laws pertaining to endangered specie protection and recovery are biased. As a disclaimer, the author has not had the opportunity to peruse all the laws concerning endangered species; what is meant by laws here is the usual steps undertaken by any government to protect endangered species, such as placing them in an enclosure and passing bills that protect them from hunting by man. To begin, the website www. endangeredspecie.
com provides an essay that answers the question of why endangered species should be saved. In a nutshell, the site purports that plants and animals hold medicinal, agricultural, ecological, commercial and aesthetic/recreational value and hence, should be protected so that future generations can experience their presence and value (Kurpis, Why Save Endangered Species? , 1997). As previously mentioned, protection more often than not consists of placing specie in a reservation, and under a security blanket of laws that defend them from being hunted for any reason.
With regard to the farmer, it is but common sense to arrive at the conclusion that the maintenance of a reservation or an enclosure is financially straining and is a waste of viable land, in the case of reservations which can be utilized for the greater good. The main reason for protecting endangered specie is its promise of possessing medicinal, agricultural, or any other beneficial attribute; what if the specie turns out to be useless after years and years of protection? The whole project, then, of protecting it because of its promise is reduced to being a waste of an exercise.
The land and other resources used could have been channeled elsewhere. Endangered Specie protection should promote a whole series of values. There should be a selection of the valuable ones. From a purely cost-benefit perspective, endangered species should only be protected if preserving them is sure to render some net marginal economic, medicinal, agricultural, ecological, commercial and recreational value. An appeal as such is always laid down in combating rain forest destruction. However, it is a known fact that rain forests can supply a cure for cancer or various medicines to save a multitude of lives (Yandle, 1999).
However, according to Robert Nelson (1992) pertaining to a study at the University of Maryland, the marginal economic value to society of protecting one more endangered specie may be nothing (Nelson, as cited in Yandle, 1999, p. 300). The law specifically states that those endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008). It follows, therefore, that animals which are of no use to the Nation and its people are not subject to protection.
Extinction of certain species who can not adapt to change should not be regarded as injurious to nature; it is a mere natural progression in the evolutionary theory. In the consideration of natural causes to extinction we must regard all species as equal, including man. Despite the efforts of environmental advocates to either place man on a pedestal as protector or belittle man as a cause of destruction, in the natural consideration of things, man is nothing but a very successful animal in the environment.
Meaning all species of flora and fauna has the natural opportunity to adapt and change as the environment requires it. If certain populations of man gain power of the land, it is not an effect of unnatural causes but a normal progression of change and survival. The acts of man are not unnatural; they are only acts using complicated tools and structures. As such, those species that can not adapt and survive are not victims but rather those that can not transition into the changed environment.
Exhausting resources to protect such weak species is not only futile, as Darwin already explains that the weak will not survive, it is also reckless in that resources, limited as they are, can be allocated to more productive causes. Acts of protectionism in a false hope of finding usefulness is a gamble very similar to the lottery. While these individuals gamble resources in a blind pursuit, man and many other stronger species suffer. Works Cited Baig, M. (2002). The evolution theory.
Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Albalagh Children: www. albalagh. net/kids/science/evolution. shtml This online article is provided by the evolutionists, which gives us the definitions of evolution, and what caused it. The source is written by experts in the field of evolution, therefore it can be trusted. It will also be helpful to the research paper because evolution has direct affect on endangered species. Kurpis, L. (1997). Why save endangered species. EndangeredSpecie. com. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www.
endangeredspecie. com/Why_Save_. htm This is an essay that highlights principal values of flora and fauna and the reasons to which endangered species should be saved or protected. Among the reasons cited for the protection on animals are medicinal, agricultural, ecological, commercial and aesthetic value of plants and animals. Through this essay it is meant to communicate that because all flora and fauna can be found to contribute a purpose, even aesthetic, then they are useful or potentially useful and should be protected.
Kurpis, L. (1997). Causes of endangerment. EndangeredSpecie. com. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www. endangeredspecie. com/causes_of_endangerment. htm A discussion on the reasons for the occurrence of endangerment of species, this is a discussion of the responsibilities of man as a protector of species and as the major cause for the occurrence of endangerment. The discussion here centers on the act of man that invade the environments of fauna and flora causing an imbalance.
The author claims that man is the principal cause of imbalance in the environment victimizing other species; as such the protection of such species should be the responsibility of man. U. S. Government Accountability Office. (2006). Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are Largely Unknown. U. S. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www. gao. gov/new. items/d06463r. pdf This report focuses on the evaluation of the laws and regulations enacted under the authority created by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
This evaluation focuses not on the successes of the act but on the efforts of protection launched under its authority and how these projects were particularly created and enacted. This report examines 107 protection plans as regards its goal, planning and achievement. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008). Endangered Species Program. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from http://www. fws. gov/endangered/Kids/resources/endanger. html Yandle, B. (1999). The market meets the environment: economic analysis of environmental policy: Rowman & Littlefield.