Animals have been at risk of extinction for as long as humans have been around. Whether that encompasses the woolly mammoth in ancient history, or the dodo in more contemporary times, now, more animals than ever before are endangered, with two distinct schools of thought forming regarding the subject: those who believe the conservation of animal species is of the utmost importance, and those who find such efforts to be a waste of funds.
On the one hand, people argue that taking steps towards rejuvenating endangered species’ populations would have several benefits, for animals and humans, alike. Possibly most importantly, by having a greater range of different species living in an area, a greater level of diversity is achieved. This, in turn, allows all inhabitants of a habitat to thrive, from insects to mammals to birds, as they all depend on each other for nutrition. Additionally, the majority of efforts towards mitigating human impact on endangered species isn’t even financial; they are far more likely to include stricter legislation to deter wildlife poachers or reduce a company’s environmental footprint. While it must be said that these also indirectly require a monetary contribution to be achieved, it is by far not the most costly issue governments are currently spending money on, with its effect on a country’s finances being virtually non-existent.
On the other hand, many individuals hold the belief that wildlife conservation is a substantial financial burden for any entity involved. Although they may partly recognise the reasons behind wanting to prevent animal species’ extinction, they just do not view this problem as crucial enough to engage with in today’s volatile political, social, or environmental climates. Hence, people taking a stand against combating the issue tend to believe that a more ‘immediate’ use could be found for the hypothetical funding, rather than blindly investing in a cause that will not show tangible results in the near future. However, the argument against accelerating the adoption and improvement of anti-extinction efforts could quickly develop into a slippery slope; today we ignore endangered animals, tomorrow all of them, and then, who can guarantee that certain demographics of humans will not follow?
In conclusion, while both sides have merit, I hold the opinion that active efforts to preserve endangered species are not in vain, much preferring a diverse future to the nearsighted point of view of we-will-cross-that-bridge-when-we-get-to-it.