IdleRich
IdleRich
Deliberately (and admittedly so) provocative article here but is he right?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/08/features.comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/08/features.comment
Any thoughts?There are 5,487 known species of land mammals, but 1,141 are at risk of extinction, a report has just revealed. That's well over 20%. That's really bad news, I thought. And then I thought again. There are still 4,346 species left, in no danger. Is that not enough? Will the world and humankind be very much the poorer if we lose a thousand or so species? I'm deliberately putting the question in a provocative way because I'm genuinely seeking an answer.
I passionately believe in saving the whale, the tiger, the orangutan, the sea turtle and many other specifically identified species. What I do not accept is the general principle that all species alive today should carry on existing for ever. We have become so attuned to treating every diminution of animals, insects, birds or fish with concern that we have forgotten to explain why we think it so terrible.
I can see three good explanations for our reactions to the endangerment of species. First, the particular appeal of the animal in question: the whale (huge and dignified), the panda (cute), the tiger (majestic and beautiful), various apes (a lot like us). I doubt we would feel the same if hyenas or armadillos were at risk. Secondly, we are rightly angry if the devastation of the species has been caused by humans, whether by way of fishing, pollution, deforestation or urbanisation. Third, the dearth of some species can lead to the disruption of a food chain, and thus affect the health and numbers of other species in the chain. But this doesn't resolve my confusion.
Many species at risk are very close to other species that are not at risk; the differences are so small that only the scientists have any interest in them. My main reason for doubting that all species are essential is that so many are completely unknown to us. Scientists have told us that they exist, and we may have caught a glimpse of a few of them on wildlife programmes, but they are otherwise never seen by us, and we know nothing about them. How many mammal species can you think of? Can the remainder be that important? Can their loss matter that much, to you or to the world? Of course we must fight hard to retain as many species as we can; but it isn't a tragedy if we lose quite a few along the way.