Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
There Is Little Justification For Society To Make Extraordinary Efforts—especially At A Great Cost In Money And Jobs—to Save Endangered Animal Or Plant Species. - With A Free Essay Review
“Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.”
I agree with the statement to the extent that there is little justification for society to make extaordinary efforts—expecially at a great cost in mony and jobs— to save all endangered animal or plant species because according to the theory of natural selection, some species that cannot adapt to the environment would die out, and the more competitive species would survive. However, I think it is justifiable if some species are endangered due to human intervention, and can result in destructive consequences.
First of all, I think whether the effort is justifiable or not for society to make extraordinary efforts to save every endangered animial or plant species depends on if the extinction of these species is due to natural selection or human activities. Since based on the theory of evolution some species naturally die out if they fail to adapt to the enviroment or are not competitive enough, in this case, making extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, would be unnecessary, because the extinction of these species would not result in any destructive consequences; it just follows the law of nature. Instead, the surviving species could improve the ability of adapting to the environment. Therefore, in the case if the extinction of species are due to natural factors, then, there is little justification for society to make extraordinary efforts to save them, especially at great cost in money. In addition, this can potentially result in some species gradually become more and more dependent on human support, which is not good for advancing these species.
However, I think it is justifiable for society to make great efforts to save endangered species if extinctions of these species are due to human activities, because, in this case, these aniamls and plant species are threatened not because they are incompetitive, instead, it is due to the fact that human acitivies destroyed their foods sources or habitats. In this case, it is very likely that there are some negative consequneces. For instance, according to the nature of food chain, the extinction of one species can affect other species, too. Thus, this can lead to a chain reaction and result in some destructive consequences that can have negative impacts on the society in long run. In this case, I think it is justifiable for society to make great efforts to save these species.
To sum up, I think there is little justification for society to make great efforts to save endangered species if extinctions are due to natural selection, whereas it is justifiable for society to save endangered species if the extinction is a result of human activities and can lead to destructive consequences.
Natural selection refers to the process whereby the fittest members of a species, or a particular population belonging to a species, survive, and not a process whereby the fittest species from a group of species survive. But even if it were correct to speak of a species going extinct as a result of natural selection, that wouldn't mean that the extinction would "not result in any destructive consequences." It also doesn't go without saying that whatever follows the law of nature is inherently good and should not be interfered with. It is surely not the case that there are no other considerations at all in deciding whether to try to prevent the extinction of species. Of course you do say that making an effort to protect threatened species can result in "some species [becoming] more and more dependent on human support" but to say that that is problematic because it "is not good for advancing these species" does not make any obvious sense (you seem to be saying that saving a species from extinction is ultimately bad for that species, which might be true in a way that you don't mean, but seems absurd in the way you apparently mean it).
You argue that we should try to prevent the extinction of species whose existence has been threatened by human activities because of the possible consequences. This argument seems reasonable to me, although, again, I don't see why there might not be destructive consequences even if humans are not responsible, and the cause of the extinction is "natural."
One thing that you would need to do in response to the alternative wording of a similar prompt that you highlight in the comment is to consider the arguments of those who agree we ought to try to save endangered species whatever the cause and whatever the cost. I see no reason why you should not do the same in response to the current prompt; you should certainly, for both prompts, try to engage more fully with the relevant issues. Thinking about the following question might help you do that: What is the value of a species? For instance, what is a species’ possible scientific value or the technological value (e.g., in terms of medical technology or even materials technology) or the value for the planet as a whole (in terms of biodiversity, say) or the ethical value (the value of life as such, or even of life for the sake of the interest of humans, who tend to enjoy encounters with wild flora and fauna)?