The extinction of animal species has become an emerging issue across the globe. While some argue that it is the responsibility of the government, as well as civilians, to value the conservation of animal species, others feel that human matters, like poverty and health care, are of more importance. In this piece, both opinions will be examined, then followed by my own view.
On the other hand, the extinction of species affects the ecosystem, which ultimately supports human life. Many species have vital functions in ecosystems, such as those of bees, which have become essential for agriculture, directly impacting food security. In addition, from a moral perspective, human beings, as the dominant species, have a moral obligation to conserve biodiversity instead of exploiting it. This includes having a moral obligation to conserve species instead of exploiting biodiversity. By safeguarding species, human beings help maintain a healthy ecosystem.
On the other hand, proponents of human interest as the paramount consideration argue that it is paramount to address immediate human issues such as poverty, hunger, and diseases. In poor nations, it can appear less justifiable to expend resources on the survival of rare species, especially when millions of people lack access to clean water and education. In fact, uplifting human life has a collateral positive impact on nature, as development initiatives can decrease deforestation and depletion of wildlife.
In my opinion, these two things are not mutually exclusive. The degradation of the environment and the sufferance of humanity are intertwined in the same cycle. In protecting the environment, it is also ensured that the resources available to humanity for survival are protected. Both things need to be achieved together, without making it seem as if they are mutually exclusive.
In sum, while human challenges have to be prioritized, another equally important task is the conservation of rare species. By working on both fronts, a balanced approach can be adopted.