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.
Some People Believe That Society Should Try To Save Every Plant And Animal Species - With A Free Essay Review
Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Every living species, apart from being useful or beautiful, is an element of the food chain and a part of ecological system. Killing one particular species destroys the chain and causes damage to the whole environment. So, to save the Earth from becoming a huge unviable desert, people should try to save plants and animals, especially endangered ones. However, this noble mission requires a balanced approach.
While it is indisputable that the maintenance of wildlife diversity is a crucial factor for the survival of our planet, the primary role of a human society is to ensure the well-being of its members. So, some people would argue that we don’t need to make any particular efforts to save animals or plants as long as there are countries where people are starving or at war. However, maintaining biodiversity and raising the standard of living are not mutually exclusive goals. On the contrary, the well-being of a society actually depends on the biodiversity. For instance, many drugs were derived from plants and fish; birds observation made the invention of the airplane possible; flying robots resembling dragonflies can explore inaccessible or dangerous areas. Had there been no dragonfly or a particular plant, there would be no flying robots or a life-saving drug. Still, people should not run to extremes. We cannot relocate the whole city to prevent the extinction of a particular cockroach or spider; it would be much easier to create a nice bug-friendly shelter.
Some animals become endangered as a result of human activity, in which case we must do our best to put the situation right. To take an example, some species of whales became endangered due to the unlimited activity of whalers. Some of the possible measures of reducing the human negative impact on the size of whales’ population involve imposing fishing restrictions and enacting legislative acts concerning poachers. These measures, while certainly demanding, are quite realistic. More importantly, they do not require extreme amounts of money or human resources. To take another example, some panda species become endangered both because of human activity and because of their feeding habits. Certain kinds of bamboo, which is the primary source of food for pandas, start flowering and seeding simultaneously all over the world. After seeding is finished these bamboo plants die, resulting in the temporary loss of food for pandas. So, these animals are forced to leave their natural habitat and move to the areas of human activity, which, of course, can be dangerous. In this case, some forest preserves could be organized around the pandas’ natural habitats. While instituting such national parks implies certain sacrifices from people, reservations and zoos do not involve any extraordinary expenses. Some of them are actually profitable. These two examples show that some endangered species can be saved without involving any exceptional and unattainable means.
Other reasons that may imperil animals and plants are climate changes or some ecological issues, which in fact are also caused by people, at least partially. Chemical and radioactive waste release by factories and nuclear plants, oil dumping from tankers, exhaust gases from our cars are just several instances of the soil, water and air contamination caused by human actions. These actions often result in ecological catastrophes, which in their turn lead to the extinction of certain species. While we can barely stop using fossil fuel and mineral ores at once, we should definitely take steps to become more environmentally friendly in our everyday life. Governments should invest money in the research of alternative fuels; they should also impose strict restraints in mining and manufacturing, and educational institutions should introduce new courses to increase our awareness of ecological problems. One would argue that these measures are extraordinary costly and very time-consuming, but can we really call these measures extraordinary? Mankind can either continue to exhaust this planet rendering it into a huge desert unfit to live in, or learn how to live in peace with the environment preserving the Earth for posterity.
In my opinion, society should try to lessen the negative impact of our own actions by introducing specific legislation, instituting zoo parks and conservation areas, imposing restriction in certain areas of manufacturing and mining, as well as increasing people awareness of ecological issues. Apart from these measures, we should also try to raise the standard of living in certain countries. To put it in a nutshell, people should make certain efforts, even if some people think that they are extraordinary, to preserve endangered species from extinction. Otherwise, Homo sapiens can become an endangered species in the near future.
The essay starts out reasonably well. The second paragraph in particular makes a fairly sophisticated, if insufficiently explicit or developed, argument concerning the fact that prioritizing the well-being of humans should not entail sacrificing other species. One of the problems with that argument is that it doesn't distinguish between maintaining biodiversity and saving particular species from extinction. The conclusion to the paragraph, for instance, is cute but seems to skirt that issue. What should we actually do in the case where saving a particular species requires extraordinary effort? Should we expend that effort because there is a possibility that the species will prove very beneficial to us or that its extinction will destroy the planet. Such a possibility seems fairly remote, despite what you say in the opening paragraph about the impact of the extinction of any one species (species, after all, go extinct all the time, and the planet is not yet a desert).
The third and fourth paragraphs seem less directly responsive to the prompt. The third paragraph asserts that "we must do our best to put the situation right" when the "situation" is caused by our activities. If you wanted to go on to claim that we only have an ethical duty to save species whose existence we ourselves have threatened, then one could appreciate the relevance of that assertion. Instead, you elaborate two examples intended to "show that some endangered species can be saved without [extraordinary effort]." That would be fine if there were any need to show that, but there is not. You only need to (and only should) discuss specific reasons why we ought (or ought not) to expend effort saving endangered species. The next paragraph is similarly tangential to the main point. Instead of arguing whether and why we should save endangered species, you explain why some species are endangered and tell us what governments should do. It is important to remain focused, in these essays, on the assigned task.