Why do we have to save wildlife for "our childrens' futures"?

Question

Shouldn't we save wildlife just because they have a right to live too?

Why do some people have to have selfish reasons even in conservation?

Answer 1

Wildlife does not mean only tigers and pandas and such. Even butterflies, sparrows, various lizards are too. Every back yard can be a conservatory. One can grow small plants, which are on the danger list.

Our back yard, smack in the middle of a 10 million population city in India, is home for a lot of small things, the occasional cobra not withstanding.

Answer 2

Conservation should be conservation of habitat, not trying to 'save wildlife'. Live on as least land as possible, be as self sufficient as possible, growing own timber for fuel, own food, dealing with own wastes and reduce your consumption of everything, including self limiting your family size.

Take these actions and you will be looking after yourself, your children and their children. Permaculture is all about permanent agriculture, making high yeilding, highly productive homesteads to ensure mimimal use of resources, transportation, processing and disposal.

In Permaculture the trees you plant on your homestead provide habitat, sequester carbon, provide a yield, timber for building, furniture and fuel provide fruits and nuts. A high yielding eco system that is managed so that it is your pension and your grandchildren's inheritance too. This leaves the rest of nature to do what it does best, balances itself and flourishes without man's interference.

Answer 3

You raise a heck of an interesting point!  Here's my opinion.  You are thinking about things at the highest level.  To many, their relationship to other inhabitants of the earth is no different from that of their ancestors, back in the cave man days.  It is no more complex, or sophisticated.  Other forms of life are seen as competition, or a potential threat.  When you look at an example, like the reintroduction of wolves into areas where they've been hunted to extinction it's pretty clear.  Most people can see that without the natural predators, mice, rabbits, deer and many others overpopulate.  They have high rates of reproduction typical of prey species, so without predators they soon exceed their food supply and begin starving, or invading our homes and work areas.  I don't have time to go out after a hard days work and hunt till dark trying to reduce the mouse population.  That makes me glad to have a few natural allies to take care of this chore for me.  Some don't see it that way.  They'd rather poison predator and prey alike right out of existence, than risk having their parking space taken over by a cougar.  This is the crux of the answer to your question.  Until people outgrow the viewpoint that other species are competition, not allies,  they will never see any problem except as it can be defined by it's relationship to them.  The argument about doing things for our grandkids is really just an effort to appeal to this mindset.  I think you're right, it's probably misguided, as it reinforces the original thinking.

Answer 4

When and if I have kids I want them to see what I have seen. (Herds of Elk just grazing and be Majestic) and Fish the lakes i have fished in. And if they want I will take them hunting in spots that I have hunted. But of course that is if all of those places still exist. I hope you get my point and it helps.

Answer 5

I have the same question, but I suppose it's to appeal to the selfish interests of people.  The problem lies in appealing to those who don't even bother instilling an appreciation of nature in their children because they themselves have no such appreciation.  Some people are outwardly hostile to anyone expousing a concern for wildlife conservation because they see that as ignoring  environmental justice concerns and a sign that enviros care only about animals and not people.

They can't see beyond their own nose and have no concept for the web of life and the interdependence of humans on the complexity of the environment.  Therefore the idea tht wildlife have a right to live too also meets with little empathy.

Answer 6

the children will have wildlife if we continue doing what we are doing hunting and fishing actually help the environment

Answer 7

Because the people who think that it should be protected for its own sake, are already convinced. We wont lose them if we say "for our childrens future" while we might actually get some. Why not use a slogan that gain us some ground?

Answer 8

I don't think it comes from selfish reasons.  Humans make the biggest impact to the environment, and it is human nature to think of things in terms of "ownership."  The idea comes from a common-held belief of conservationists that we don't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.  

I personally agree with you - I value wildlife and believe they have a right to live, too.  But not everyone values wildlife - and no one has any idea what future generations will value.  So, we should be careful that we do not forever lose something that they might value.  It is then their responsibility to make sure they don't lose something that their descendants might value, and so on.

Answer 9

Do you mean we don't have to save them because kids these days don't like wildlife anyways?

Just kidding, it's just sounds better to people to have some impact on them (or their children) rather than save some animal they may have never seen.

Answer 10

True, I agree. I think the "for our children's futures" thing is kind of like a marketing campaign--it's meant to motivate people who otherwise might not give a c**p. Some people just don't care that much about animals, I guess. Personally, I can't imagine a world without wildlife.

Plus, I'm not sure saving wildlife for your children's future is necessarily selfish--after all, you're making sacrifices for your children's sake, not your own. But I understand what you mean, I think--that it's still about people and not about the animals themselves. Maybe some people don't really know a lot about wildlife, so it's hard for them to imagine making sacrifices for them. But they know their kids, so if they believe that wildlife will make their kids' futures better, then that's easier for them to picture. Plus, at this point, people and animals are so close together--I mean, it's rare to find a place where animals and people do not interact. I think that's kind of sad, but that's the way it is. In some ways, it might help the animals, because people will get to know them better. For instance, if you've seen the beauty of a deer in a forest first-hand, you'll probably be more likely to want to make sure they're around in the future.

Answer 11

I think its simply because its very hard to motivate people to make changes unless they see a clear benefit to themselves or, in this case, to the people they hold dear.

I've seen this phrasing thrown around a lot by environmentalists and i think its really a marketing strategy rather than their own beliefs.

Think about it this way: People who live in cities dont go out to the country very often so don't really care in their day to day lifes about saving wildlife. But would they like their children to have the opportunity to see wildlife when they grow up? probably yes, because most people care that their children have a good a full life.

People have alot to worry about as it is; not many people will have the time or inclination to sit around considering the fate of a few birds somewhere in the wilderness. Really this phrase is just about getting emotional leverage on people to force them to think about wildlife by bringing it closer to their lives.

I would guess/hope that many of the people behind the phrase actually do belief in the rights of wildlife, but they know that its not easy to "sell" this viewpoint to busy school mums etc...

Answer 12

I agree -- wildlife should not only be saved for wildlife's sake, but to also protect various other species associated with that aspect of wildlife, keep the ecosystem stable, and maintain the balance in its ecological niche.

There is another angle on this though.  What if we discovered a plant in the Amazon that cured cancer and a number of childhood illnesses naturally?  But to use that plant and keep it productive we had to preserve the entire ecosystem?

That might be what some people maybe indicating with the term "our children's futures" when they toss that out.

Answer 13

Yeah, you're d**n right.

Piece!!