Species extinction

There is a lot of concern about species being close to extinction, especially if that is caused by human activities.

After all, species have been going extinct ever since life on earth started, with the mass extinction of the dinosaurs being the most notable. So, if humanity wipes out a few more, what does that really mean? For some, it may represent a failure of humanity to be a proper steward for the planet, but that presumes that it is humanity's job to do so. Many hold protests when species are under threat, and laws have been passed to protect the natural habitat of threatened species from development.

But is it fair to hold up potentially beneficial development projects just because the last few hundred or thousand members of a species will be adversely affected? It is a fair question, because humanity has no qualms about killing millions of animals for food, so why does it make a difference if those killed are the last remnants of a species?

To be a valid reason to hold up human development, threats to species need to be an indicator (canary) of problems greater than just the loss of that species, such as impending collapse of an essential ecosystem. The potential loss needs to outweigh the gains from the development, otherwise it is just a sentimental concern. That is, an impending species extinction needs to be shown to be an indicator of deeper damage to the environment by a development.

If environmental protection, including that of threatened species, is to be taken seriously, efforts need to be directed towards mitigating real threats to the earth or humanity. Of course, 'beneficial' must be more than just lining the bank accounts of a few businesses and workers, but result in the improvement of the living conditions of all the peoples in the society in which the development takes place.

Many zoos have been critical in saving endangered species, but does that mean zoos are the best ways to do that preservation. To a large extent, zoos are a poor facsimile of wildlife, meant to provide city-bound humanity with a glimpse into the world that is being sacrificed for their modern lifestyles. In a way, the modern argument for zoos is like the argument for space exploration: some good comes of them, so let us keep their whole expensive theatre show for that.

Of course, the alternatives are to spend money on the dire needs of humanity now, alongside specific spending upon the good husbandry of animals for their own sake, and how we can help the earth handle our presence. The problem is that in societies where everything has to make a few a lot of money, the vast majority of peoples, and masses of animals, are left behind while a the supporters of those few are placated with grand theatrical gestures like space exploration, sports stadiums and zoos.