Are there any logical reasons not to save endangered species?

Question

I am writing an essay for school and in it i want to include reasons why endangered species should not be saved. Let me know if you think of any. THANKS!

Answer 1

Sure, any species whose numbers have fallen beyond a certain point of viability, logically speaking, are not good candidates for extraordinary efforts to keep in existence.  Some species have such low numbers that severe inbreeding would result from the attempts, making the animals even worse off.  

That said, successful attempts for species with very low numbers, like the California Condor, would give creedence to making attempts to save any species regardless of numbers.  

I guess it depends ultimately on your point of view regarding warranting huge expenses in an effort to save a species simply for the sake of having it around to look at.  Extinction is a fact of life.  Evolution would not happen without it.

Answer 2

This depends on how we might go about trying to save the endangered species.

If the means involves cleaning up pollution or stopping desertification, avoiding draining of wetlands... things we should do for other species too, then there would be no good reason to avoid saving the endangered species.

If the reason for the species being endangered is that it is dependent on eating a species that is also endangered, obviously we have a problem whichever way we go. Saving the predator may mean failure of the prey species and ultimately the predator.

Where a species is not able to reproduce successfully, or its offspring are dying off before maturity, we should not ignore this, it may signal a problem that will spread to other species.

Now, if the reproductive failure is caused by some virus or bacterial problem, failure of this one species could be the only way to protect many other species, But tackling the disease to protect this species may also be a way of protecting other species... we have to evaluate what is possible.

The fact that a species kills humans would not be of itself an adequate reason to refuse to preserve it. But if the species tends to attack us killing millions, I doubt anyone could be persuaded to struggle for its survival ( a disease organism).

Answer 3

Good question.  I'm not sure how best to answer it.  Maybe the species that is endangered is beyond help?  Maybe there isn't a big enough breeding population?  Cost concerns, habitat is destroyed, etc...

Probably a lot of 'little' reasons, but I don't think there is one big reason to not try to save an endangered species.

Answer 4

Do you, personally, miss the Passenger pigeon?   Do you even know what they were?    There were BILLIONS of them in the mid 1800's.   Extinct in 1914.  Has your life been affected?   There may be more urgent needs for our attention than some obscure "endangered" animal.  If you would like to donate all your money to help, thats fine.

Answer 5

If you support the theory of evolution, you can't support efforts to prevent the extinction of species. That's what evolution is - adapt or die. Strength only comes from adaptation and adaptation only comes from change. So change or die. If you can't change, you shouldn't survive. Dinosaurs, horses in ancient North America, Mammoths, saber toothed tigers, dodo birds, the Australian Aborigine in Tasmania to name a few. Humans adapted to the top of the pile and if our evolutionary theory is correct, other animals must adapt to the world as we control it or die. That's what evolution is. For a true evolutionist, any other view is logically contradictory. But then when does logic get in the way of soliciting billions of dollars in donations to "save" ________ (you fill in the blank).

Answer 6

There could be. There are plenty of endangered species that are not critical to the environment. There is no real logical reason to prohibit development of millions of acres of land just to save the last 50 members of some almost extinct species in my opinion. Wanting to save the species in that case is more of an emotional response about the sadness of loosing a wonderful and unique part of nature. If only pure, unemotional logic is considered, there is no logical reason to continue gigantic efforts to get so little result. Frankly, if the species is already that close to extinction, the damage is already done beyond all undoing, or realistic undoing. Environmentalists often say the decline of these species is an indicator if pollution. That implies to me that even they do not consider saving that one rare species important in itself, but only as a part of an overall environmental policy that would itself still be valid after that species was gone.

Answer 7

I don't know if you will completely understand the answer, but here goes:

1. Natural selection: we shouldn't play God, we do not have dominion over nature.

2. The gene pool will be too shallow for the species to survive long term (not enough distinct family groups to maintain a broad genetic foundation)

3. It is not sustainable.  Never will be.  Animals are successful only because they fill a need in their ecosystem.  If you destroy the ecosystem there is no use trying to preserve specific species just because they are "cute".  I.e. you can't save a panda if all the bamboo is gone, they will starve anyway because they don't eat anything else.

Answer 8

LET me say... there is none.

ONE has to understand the role of every species in an ecosystem....as living things we all live together... what might not be beneficial to us....is beneficial to the other species we are dependent on..

ITS NOT MERELY an emotional issue.... Its a cycle. Trying to justify our selfishness is foolish

Answer 9

Yes, Humans call it progress. Overpopulation, desired resources, and greed are the real meanings of Progress for our species.