Should money ever be a consideration in cases where a species may be endangered by human activity?

Question

Should money ever be a consideration in cases where a species may be endangered by human activity?

Explain, please.

I think that species are more important than money, because if a species is extinct, they are gone forever. Money on the other hand, can be earned.

I know that some say that inflation is a problem...and it can lead to the downfall of humans. If we waste money, it won't be good.

EEEEEK what's the real answer?

Answer 1

Money is a consideration in everything, including conservation of species. Most of the predictions of coming mass extinction are made by people who made similar predictions decades ago. Guess what? It didn't happen, but despite being wildly wrong over and over, the media continues to give them air time and coverage.

We could freeze embryos of endangered species, along with seeds of endangered plants. Sometime in the future when the current insanity is past maybe scientists will be able to repopulate species from that genetic material. We can't safely rekindle a species like this today but 100 years ago we couldn't do much compared to what science routinely does today. Will it be worth it to our descendants to go to this effort? That's hard to say but at least they'd have the option.

Other protection efforts have mixed success since the habitat changes tend to be permanent and that's what leads to most modern extinctions. You can't put a high enough penalty on elephant and rhino poachers, the poachers are too poor and desperate to be deterred and the local governments aren't always ethical and diligent in enforcing the laws.

Answer 2

Once you watch this movie:

"Happy Feet",

you will get the answer.

It's about Saving Fish Food for Cute Dancing Flourishing ignortant yet smart Penguins!

Trying to convey a message to humans !!!

By stopping hunting Fishes, Whales etc ...

Money thus shouldnt be any consideration ...

Money is just a lubricant of getting tasks done after all ...

Nothing more Nothing Less

Answer 3

As a case in point, let's look at the California Condor.

There were about 27 remaining in the wild when scientists captured them and started a costly breeding program.  After many years, a release program began reintroducing the species into the wild.  The problem, however, was two-fold.  For a species to remain viable, the population should not drop below 50 individuals.  Otherwise it is susceptible to all kinds of problems.  Also, one of the main causes of decline was the fact that these creatures were ingesting lead from bullets.  That hadn't changed, until just recently, when lead shot was banned in condor habitat.

That said, I believe that a lot of valuable data was gained in trying to save this species, and that despite the low numbers, they do have a shot of survival.  Was it worth it?

Part of me says yes.  Part of me says no.