Should conservationists allow some species to die out?

This article talks about how in 1987, wildlife scientists trapped the last of the 22 living California Condors, and they bred them and a few years later, released them back into the wild in more copious amounts.
The article also says that it costs about 4 million each year to maintain and monitor this species, raising the question of whether or not this is a waste of money.
From a moral/ethical standpoint, I think that saving species that are soon to be extinct is neccessary. We shouldn't knowingly allow species to die out, but then again the money behind maintaining them seems costly. Also from a scientific view, unique species could be very beneficial to future research; I think we should make a logical decision as to whether or not to spend money on maintaining species - considering scientific benefits and costs.

OMG!!!!
I would never hesitate to save a race from extinction, like you said knowngly letting a species die out, all because you wanna save some money, is just morally wrong and just pure evil.
It's like your the one murdering ewm, by standing on the side and watching lives just wither away!

I completely agree with your moral/ethical standpoint, people should spend however much money they need to save species!
Money isn't alive, it's not a breathing creature, in years to come money won't change but that species might die out...

I think this shows how corruptive money can be! Imagine if another species was deciding whether or not humans deserved to live! I think the bottom line in most situations is money, and I understand that in alot of issues you have to take expenses into consideration, but I think this is way too far! If you consider how much it costs a company to make a 1 minute commercial vs the funding that most environmental groups recieve, you can tell that the distribution is not fair. It's so sad that this questions is being asked, and that the world has actually come to a point where money means more than life! I agree with both of you, this is so unethical and morally wrong! I hope that no species ever goes extinct due to human's unfufilling strive of wealth.

Exactly! Another species shouldn't have the power to decide whether another species lives or not. It's just inhuman. Company's do spend so much on things they don't need tyo thrive, or live. But when it comes to using money on someone other then themselves, they won't cause they are so selfish. It sickens me that people asre able to let species just die out, just so they can save an extra few dollars

I think that the prevention of species extinction has to be a priority, no matter where the funding comes from and no matter the cost. Therefore I agree with the other posts because as a species is lost so are our options for future discovery and advancement. Maintaining to save this species from becoming extinct and protecting their wild places is crucial for future and could prove to be a great benefit.

One quote in the text sort of made me squirm: "People have to accept that we don't have enough money to save everything." I think this is a perfect example that you guys are right in saying that money has sort of taken priority over other more important things. Isn't saving an endangered species one of the top priorities we should have? I understand the conservationists' frustration when they have such lack of support because of money. It doesn't grow on trees... Maybe we should consider showing support for funding these programs better, especially if we want to save our biological diversity?

We wouldn't have much if we lost that.

I would never hesitate to save a race from extinction either! as humans we are morally obligated to save others even if its not human yes money has become a priority but same with greed! people have to swallow there pride and help the world because as we can see its dieing out on us due to the greed and selfishness of humans we have to smarten up of course we cannot save every species that is endangered but there's no harm in trying right? i mean whats wrong with spending a little money that was gonna be used to open a cigarette company to save an animal that you might not ever see again if you don't help?

I don't necessarily agree. I think that nature should do what its intended and if thats what happens to a species, thats what happens. Nature should take its course, and we shouldn't change it. I don't think we should be spending millions of dollars just to save one species. Even though you'd want to save these animals cause it would be nice if they wouldn't go extinct, wouldn't you rather spend that money on more important things, like saving HUMAN lives? Do you really think some random bird going extinct will change the world?

I understand where you are coming from kristen and know why you think that nature should proceed naturally but by saving this one species it in turn may save other species and benefit other species along the way. Although we could be spending money on saving the human race these animals may help us to come up with cures for the human race and will therefore be worth the money that we are spending to save them.

I don't know, just my opinion, I just think most conservation is just delaying the inevitable anyway - why bother?

I agree with you kristen. Realistically, humans are not going to be able to save all known species which are endangered; this would require money which simply is not available. I think we should consider the benefits of saving certain species, such as possible scientific benefits a species could bring. Otherwise, we should leave nature be. We shouldnt spend tremendous amounts money to save a species, that if it were to become extinct, has no huge impact on not only humans but the environment in which it lives. Our money should prioritize itself to more important issues which ensure that humans continue to live. After all, shouldnt ensuring the duration of the human race on this planet be our ultimate goal?

i completely disagree with kristen because like in all seriousness your helping to save a life of an animal us humans are animals all animals feel like you cant say it is inevitable some animals were trying to save are dying off because of us and the people that realize that are the people who help think about it how many times have you littered probably a large number one of those things you threw out that car window could of suffocated a bird or something like that honestly i think your morals should tell you that saving a life even if its an animal is always right!

Josh, so you're saying that in the future you would like your hard earned money to go to saving a species that honestly has no effect on anything? Any animal? Like Taylor said, maybe consider the benefits of saving certain species, not all species, but the ones with certain scientific benefits, other than that its just a big waste of money. What reasons do you see to save them, other than "then they wont go extinct".

i have never understood why it has to be our responsibility as humans to save every single animal from extinction. its not always our fault that species dies out, and even if it is, why can't we let nature take its course? Humans tend to forget that we are part of nature as well. Naturally in the wild its survival of the fittest and we're messing that up.

From an ethical standpoint, it would be difficult to not do everything that you can to keep a species from dying off. We would hope as humans that if the role was reversed they would do that for us. As the most advanced species on earth we do have the biggest impact on the enviroment. Its hard not to think that what we do in out everyday lives harms the lives of other animals. The cost just isnt realistic though.
Hopefully the loss of this species doesnt effect another species in terms of the food chain.

I believe that all animals have rights just as we have our rights. Animals should be seen as creatures, creatures of the earth, creatures who deserve their recognition. We should step in and act when a specific species begins to die out. Just think of it in the animals point of view, would you want to be left to die out and suffer, or would you like someone to step in and guide you to a more of a gaining future with life rather than this corrupt idea of leaving animals out to die and suffer. This is a perfect "you know what really grinds my gears" moment... Just think of it in a catholics perspective (the golden rule).

I see your point Jordan, but I simply can't see why it is our inherent responsibility as humans to "save" all these endangered species. All livings things' natural instinct is to survive and animals will do that just like people.

Yes Mark, I see where you are coming from. You can leave things the way nature attended it to be, or you can step in and drive nature to more of a positive outcome. I feel the need to step in. To drive that species up rather than leave them to die and suffer. Yes we are more intellegent that other animals that roam the earth and swim in the seas, and yes you can leave it to more of a "survival of the fittest" kind of perspective. Us being the fittest. But the reason most populations die out is because of human activity. Our activity is usually negative towards the environment and if you look at it in a biological stand point we cause greenhouse gas emissions, an increadable secretion of carbon into the atmosphere. If you look at the golf of Mexico right now, check out the amount of oil that is flowing into the oceans... This affects our whole ecosystem! The Oceans become affected resulting in the overall community to go down, ultimatly resulting in species suffering because of it... And its not just the oceans that are taking a toll, its the borel forest, rain forests, grass lands, mountains, etc., all over the world humans are causing a negative impact on the communities and ecosystems... Now if you look at it in en ethological perspective now... Is it right to leave these specific species to suffer? In my opinion, no, but another person like your self might not share that opinion.

Quote :

But the reason most populations die out is because of human activity.

Very true. Seeing has humans hold the responsibility to the previous extinction of many species, it seems fair that we must be obligated to help those that we are currently endangering. However, the capacity of problems on our world today prove this task to be difficult. Saving all of the species who are soon to be extinct is a utopian goal. We simply cannot achieve that. We should choose how we spend our money and perhaps focus on our own problems before we deal with a species' extinction which will have no detriment to human status. Although if we do have the time and money to save a unique species from extinction, then so be it - lets do it. We should choose wisely what we spend money on to save, and maybe do some research into the species' impact after extinction before throwing away lots of needed money.

Yes Taylor, I believe that that is the right way to go about things. It only makes sence to help the species that are currently being endangered when we actually got the time and money to help them. But, I feel that the species shouldn't be in this situation in the first place. We should look ahead before a species begins to die out, this will allow us to put the extra money that we have into evening out the population changes. When the population begins to goes down, we simply put in the time and money to help this specific species and even out the curve. And When the population begins to go up, we send in hunters and bring down the populations biological maximum limit. Remember that too much of something is also a bad thing. This will avoid the whole idea of money because it hasn't gone too far into the decrease or increase in the population to do anything dangerous. Like I said, we can avoid this by looking ahead and planning ahead, putting into perspective every situation that can happen. This will benifit us economically, and it will benefit a given species in a way that they will survive. Given this idea, we can avoid the whole outcome of extinction.

yo jordan is exactly right!! if we can see these things before hand we can stop the word endangered from ever occurring again in our society if we improve our technology enough and this will prevent the word economics from even being used in relation to animals! we already have some limits put on hunters and fishers into how much of an animal they can hunt or fish and this is going good for the animal kingdom because some animals can overpopulate if this wasn't occurring causing a disturbance in the food chains! so lets work together and try not to do anything that would endanger an animal!

I agree that we should not use such a large amount of money just to save one specie, because in the end the California Condors might just end up dying then all the money spent on them would become a waste. Honestly, why not use the 4 million for medical researches or simply anything that would help people's life out? instead of using it on the California Condor? I know not saving the specie is a cruel thing, but we can't really do anything about it, there are so many reasons behind why a specific specie is dying and we can't stop all human activity that is contributing to these extinctions. I don't think people would stop what they are used to doing cause of this bird, for example driving a car. If this specie is dying out so quickly, there must be a reason behind it, and to find the answer, more money is going to be involved, so basically to save the California Condor isn't just going to be 4 million, it's going to be way more than that. I understand that the California Condor may allow scientists to gain more knowledge and perhaps discover something about the bird which may be a cure for some human disorder, but no one knows that for sure.. so why pour money down the drain?

In my opinion, there are other situations out there which are way more important than saving this one bird, even if we save this bird so what? there's still going to be some more species that will eventually die out, what will the conversationalists do then? use 4 million on each specie that is about to become extinct? I don't think so.

Amy does bring up some good points there are bigger issues in the world today then just one species of animal
but we have to start somewhere like we cant get everything at once obviously but we can help little by little money is a big issue but sometimes money is not needed what we need to do as a society is develop institutions that are based on donations and volunteers who have free times to help animals which i believe they have a small amount of and go from there although there are other issues to be addressed at least we wont be standing around just talking about them but taking part in solving a problem even if its just a small one

I definitely agree with what Kristen first said. I always used to think that the government and its citizens should pour money into the foundations supporting the conservation of different species, however recently I have changed my mind quite a bit. I read an article somewhere else on this topic, and the idea of spendning countless money to save a species that has no major relevance to us or the environment seems like such a waste. Yes it IS very sad to think that these species would simply die out and no longer be in existence, however I think this is sometimes necessary. If a species has a MAJOR impact on its environment (like humans for example ... lol ) and its numbers are dwindling then I definitely that steps should be taken to save it. Although its a sad thought, nature is going to take its course, and not every species is going to live forever.

yeah anthony id say your completly right but some animals have large effects on the environment we just dont know what they are for instance not many people know the impact bees have on the environment and what they do besides gather necter people dont know that they pollinate flowers so they dont think much of it once we understand things more thats when the level of endangered species will decrease