Morality of allowing extinctions
Interesting debate. My personal hope is that the human race wipes itself out pretty soon before doing too much more damage!
Below is a University essay I wrote on the motivations for conservation (ie why we shouldn't cause extinctions of other species). Its pretty long so by all means ignore this post keep to the main debate.....
What should conservation efforts be directed at and why?
Due to the rate of man’s consumption of resources, how rapidly we destroy and alter habitats, and the externalities of growth in the world economies there are almost infinite possible causes and aims for conservation bodies to try and tackle. With so many possible conservation causes and comparably so little funding, so few conservationist and such rapid rates of habitat destruction should we prioritise some conservation efforts over others, and if so, what criteria do we use to determine which issues and causes take priority? To answer this question it is perhaps better to first consider why we conserve the environment at all?
In seeking to protect species, ecosystem and habitats we are may be doing because it is ethical for humans as the most successful species on earth to try and avoid destroying or reducing the numbers of other species, i.e we altruistically deem that all other organisms should be allowed to exist. The other potential reason we should try to protect the environment would be purely of the benefit of humans, both present and future. This potentially becomes a philosophical question of whether the universe would really exist without the self-aware beings to analyse it. If there was a hypothetical species, of which humans could and would never find any trace, would it matter if it became extinct? Do we conserve for the sake of conserving environment, or is it an ultimately selfish action by man that the destruction of other species, and of the environment generally is to our own detriment.
Man as a species seems to have to intrinsic and overriding drives. We are driven to explore and to learn about things and when we know we can, we are compelled to exploit and gain advantage from what is around us. Though idealistically the most ethical thing for humans to do is to avoid impacting on any species in the long-term and to live in harmony with the environment, the can only way this can be achieved would be through a subsistence lifestyle similar to that from 10,000 years ago, and in the modern world this is not tenable. Large increases in human population alone mean that basic needs have overtaken any possibility of living in balance with all other species on the planet. The urge to meet not just our basic needs but also our infinite wants as humans has led to the creation of the capitalist system, which is geared so that people improve their standard of living through exploiting the earth’s resources. In a modern setting we only consider it necessary to conserve the environment for the sake of allowing humans to study, observe, learn from and enjoy it and the creatures within it, then perhaps all conservation causes are chosen on the basis of what benefits people and society the most. Protecting species, eco-systems and habitats benefits society in a large number of different ways over, most generally over the long term.
To allow the destruction of the environment and extinction of species removes the diversity of aesthetics of the world, and just as society would consider the destruction of a famous piece of artwork a tragedy, so we also want to preserve species (and individual animals) just to be able to enjoy them on a personal and societal level. Ethically most faiths hold that to destroy something of beauty is a sin, because we automatically feel that others deserve the chance to experience what we find pleasant. The same is true of landscapes, habitats and species; it is often argued that they should be protected for the benefit of future generations.
It is estimated that since man became more advanced in the last 10,000 years the rate of species extinction has increased 1000-fold (Global Biodiversity Assessment). This massive and rapid reduction in genetic diversity means we put ourselves at risk. By 2020 it is thought that as many as a quarter of the world’s plant species may have gone extinct. This could affect crops that we are dependant on for survival; homogenous crops, even those of exceptional, engineered, strains which can out-compete all native varieties, will all be susceptible to the same blights, and therefore mass crop failure could occur due to the limited gene-pool of such varieties. If native crop plants have been forced out and become extinct by these super-strains then no new genes are available, and crop blights could become frequent.
The rapid extinctions of plant and animal species means that the number of species from which we can derive new drugs and medicines is diminished. Only a very small proportion of manufactured drugs are made synthetically, so destroying rainforests and reducing global biodiversity means we are less likely to ever find cures for the likes of AIDS and various cancers. Examples already exist recently where it has been realised that certain little known species can be used against these diseases. For instance the Rosy Periwinkle flower, found in Madagascar, has been successfully used to combat several forms of cancer, including Hodgkin's disease (Dirk et al 97). The moral argument to this is that surely if we hold the protection of human life in the highest importance, then surely to destroy even possible cures for disease is totally unethical?
The final reason to conserve would seem to be to allow future generations exactly the same rights and resources as we have had at our disposal. For one generation to cause massive species extinction, reducing the quality of life possible for every subsequent generation can be argued to be morally wrong. One of the flaws in all intrinsic flaws in democratic political systems is that governments need only plan for the relatively short term, as they are only voted into or out of power by the voting population at the time, they are not made responsible in any way to generations of the future.
Having explored exactly why we should make conservation efforts the question comes as to exactly what we should conserve? Of known species, we can ask why one is worth protecting more so than the other, but when we talk about entire eco-systems, the potential societal benefits of which may be unclear, it becomes even more difficult. Not only do the potential benefits of any given conservation efforts need to be weighed-up, but also whether the protection can be done cost-effectively. For instance it would be unethical to spend millions on a project for the protection of a single species if the project was very unlikely to succeed. In theory to make anything but the best decision about where to target conservation efforts is unethical, as all but the best options will, to a certain extent, waste the limited amounts of money, time and personnel available to conservation.
Obviously it will never be possible to make the absolute best conservation efforts, as there are so many unknown factors. We don’t jet know which species will provide cures for disease, or even exactly which species or ecosystems society values the most for it’s aesthetics. It is perhaps likely that many of the best conservation efforts could be made in researching and protecting areas of tropical rainforest, as it here that levels of biodiversity tend to be highest.
It is often easiest, and perhaps most cost effective to target conservation efforts towards a particular species. If this species is relatively high in the food chain, then making sure the habitat is managed and protected so that this species can survive will often mean that most species within the ecosystem are protected. Conservation could be argued to be not just about avoiding extinctions but about restoring or recovering species populations to secure levels, and preventing other species from reaching such a perilous situation in the first place (RSPB ’05). However it is difficult to argue whether it is better to focus the little money available on restoring population levels, or attempting to save the species which have become critically endangered.
There are example where money is spent on potentially poor causes which both in terms of benefit to society and cost-effectiveness, and this sometimes seems to occur when conservation bodies follow fashions created by the media to protect the big, brash and appealing species. Example of this might include the introduction of Ospreys to Rutland Water in England, where a species with relatively healthy global population levels has been introduced back into a small region where it has become extinct. Some might argue that this is actually unethical, as the species is being introduced at large cost, with little actually added protection of it future globally. The situation could be argued to become almost that of a glorified zoo, where bird are released at one location, in order for people to come and view them there. However, charismatic species like the Osprey can change the view of public towards the issue surrounding species protect, and this surely, in tern benefits other conservation efforts.
There is a danger that media fashions and general public relations exercises overtake the actual need to protect species. A recent example of this occurred in Britain when the cost of transporting a Magnificent Frigatebird found on the Isle of Man in 2000 back to it’s normal range in the tropical West Atlantic was incurred. Ethically this could have been seen as flawed for various reasons. First of all it isn’t an particularly efficient use of money to fly an individual bird half way around the world. Also it has been suggested that vagrancy is a necessary mechanism in some species to expand / alter their range in changing climatic conditions, and though unlikely in this particular case the principle of interference does not seem like sound science. Perhaps this is an example of where the desire on the part of a conservation body (Cheshire Zoo), took precedent over what the most ethical option in the situation was. Conservation bodies need to be careful not to take action which the world press will deem most ‘fashionable’ – it is all very well to protect flagship species such as Tigers and Giant Pandas, but there is a danger of loosing sight of the conservation of other species which aren’t so ‘glamorous’.
Another example which could be viewed as unethical allocation of conservation efforts may be very rare situation where some species are over-protected. In Britain Great Crested Newts are afforded massive protection, and any development which take place within the vicinity of any records of the species (even historical ones) has first sweep the area for news, and then set up a perimeter to prevent them entering the development. This means a very large cost to developers, and considering the scarcity of the species the laws in place would seem disproportional, even to the extent that it isn’t common sense.
There are obviously many issue surrounding what to protect, and why and in this essay I feel I have only begun to address the subject. The most ethical behaviour in any situation would seem to be to weigh up how much a species, habitat or ecosystem benefits society, whether through enjoyment, what we learn, or how we can potentially exploit it in future. How cost efficiently and effectively protection can take place also needs to be taken into account, and a balance struck between the two. With so many unknown factors we are unlikely to be able to prioritise conservation efforts in the best way. However, conservation is urgently need now in a huge number of situations, and it is important that we try to act as quickly as possible on as larger scale as we can.
