Can we Prevent a Mass Extinction of Life on Earth? Essay

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Can we Prevent a Mass Extinction of Life on Earth? Essay

In only a handful of years, we have lost over half the worlds forests, half the worlds grasslands and half the worlds wetlands. We are consistently eliminating all that makes up our worlds ecosystems. Eventually, they will collapse. Its hard to accurately predict the rate extinction we face, but say there are 100 000 000 different species on earth. At an extinction rate of only 0.01% a year, that would mean that we are losing at least 10,000 species every year. To put that into perspective, thats over 1 species an hour, or 10 times the population of the Vatican City. But perhaps, first of all, we should ask yourselves just how much it will matter to us if earths remaining wilderness is lost. Part of the answer is wilderness speaks to us. In a way, it tells us we are not alone. We are only a small part of a bigger picture, one we cannot yet see, but one we must respect. Another part of the answer, is that in 1997, a value of $30 trillion dollars was giving to assistance offered to humanity by all the worlds biodiversity. Maybe instead of asking people how much losing earths wilderness will matter, we should ask how much losing $30 trillion will matter. For the sake of species preservation, if biodiversity has an economic value, it suddenly becomes worth a lot more.

Perhaps sustainable development is the answer to conserving biodiversity. But as pointed out by many environmentalists, the term sustainable development is a contradiction. As they put it, we either have development, or we dont. Ideally, we should withdraw from the situation we have created. But as long as there are humans, there will be development. No one can expect there to be a world with no development. A world without evolution.

How do we Conserve Species?

In the early days, conservation very austere. People were seen as the enemy. National Parks were fenced in, and people were kept out. Even native tribes, like the Maasai, were driven away from their ancestral lands. Armies of rangers trained in combat are deployed to keep humans out. These strictly guarded parks became havens for wildlife, and only an elite few could enter them. And this military still approach worked. Without it, elephants in the wild may have gone extinct. But it had many critics all around the world. Was it wrong to displace so many communities, and reserve wildlife for the upper class? That all depends on when, and for how long. Sometimes, fortress conservation is the only option. When a habit is almost destroyed and its residents on the brink of extinction, fortress conservation guarantees results. But will never be a long term solution. Where there are military borders, there will always be conflict. Fortress conservation can only last for a decade at most. Once the populations inside the park are stable again, then it can once more be opened up to the world.

These days, the approach is include local communities. This shows, that unlike some critics say, conservation does not keep rural people poor or perpetuate inequality. Instead of armies of rangers, locals are being trained and educated on how to conserve wildlife. Ultimately, before we can tackle conservation, we have to tackle poverty. How can we, as privileged Westerners, ask a man to protect lions, if cannot afford to put food on his familys table. The key to this is education. Maybe in order to prevent extinction, Western nation have of duty to develop education in developing countries.

Which Species do we Save

Decisions over which species we choose to save and those we let go are inevitable. In the end, we must invest in the projects that prove to be the most successful for conservation. All plants and animals, in human perspective, can be divided into 2 groups. The ones that keep the planet alive, and the ones that keep our imaginations alive. Sadly, it is the creatures that people dismiss, such as bugs, that predominantly make up life on earth. To most humans, bugs are insignificant. Probably because they are so small. To many people, they all look the same. But nobody would ever say that about an elephant for example. What we must do, is see this forms of life as highly complex, unique individuals. As rivals to any mammal, no matter how small they are. But which species do we really need to preserve? Fundamentally, we need every species. We need a variety of biodiversity. But if we must choose, then for the sake of the planet, we must conserve those that keep it alive.

Despite the valiant efforts of environmentalists and conservationists from around the world, we are still seeing a decline in a large number of species. Why is this? Do people simply not care?

Poaching is one reason. If poaching does indeed become a serious problem is an area, then it can be only a matter of time before entire populations are wiped out. In some cases whoever, poaching is the least a populations worries. In fact, it is quite the opposite that makes that population vulnerable. The wild Bactrian camel is one of the most endangered creatures on the planet, and at least 90% of people, especially Westerners, have never heard of it. Is this a case of being too well hidden from humanity? Maybe a certain amount of human contact is required to save a population. Another reason, is the challenges we face are far greater than those we have solved. We now must deal with climate change, increased pressure on land, overpopulation& All this leads to a loss of habitat, whether it is because global warming and desertification or human development of the land.

Has the Focus of the Conservation Movement been Wrong?

The conservation movement never got its focus wrong. It was just too restricted. A half a century ago, when conservation first kicked of, the message was save to whale or save the elephant. The conservation movement never really matured after that. Perhaps what we ought to do, is save the habitat. If we restore a species habitat, then numbers of that particular species will increase, as well as the others that make up that ecosystem. However, the reason for conservations narrow focus, is that the general public respond well to the preservation of charismatic species. To an extent, this is an ingenious approach. It is the concept of hotspot conservation. The logic being, if we focus on the conservation of one species, many other species get protection as a result. Put simply, if one species is saved, all species in that habitat are saved. But most importantly, where the conservation movement went wrong, is it has not been relevant to local communities.

In conclusion, any extinction before its time matters. But is extinction our greatest concern? Arguably no, it is not. We can save species. In the past, albeit through tremendous efforts, we have saved the last remaining individuals of many species. Perhaps of greater concern, should be the decline in population numbers that brings about extinction. That is a threat we will not be able to cope with.

Click Here To Order Now!