Prompt: “Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.”
I’ve kept all typos.
With the constant, looming threat of climate change, there is debate as to what extent people should attempt to protect the environment. In capitalist societies, people give more value to the products developed from natural resources than the natural resources themselves. There are arguments that the extraordinary efforts required to protect the environment, its plant species, and its animal species are not worth the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. While extraordinary efforts may be required to ensure the protection of plant and animal species, the existance and continuation of these species is nessecary, and worth a great cost.
The primary benefit to protecting all plant and animal species is the bolstering of biodiversity. Biodiversity, the existance of a wide range of different species, garners more value than each species’ economic worth. Biodiversity serves as a protection of species and landscapes. A multitude of species work in conjunction, and when parasites or diseases affect one species in a group, the whole survives. One example in the past couple centuries is the Irish Potato Famine . The Irish Potato Famine occured when a disease was spread in Ireland, infecting nearly all potato crops in the region. The Irish heavily relied on one species of potato that was prone to the disease. Once the species of potato in the region was infected, the Irish lost their primary source of food, leading to malnutriotion and starvation of its residents. By protecting other plant species, the occurance of similar famines is greatly reduced as other plant species exist for people to farm and rely on. Loss of biodiversity increases the risk for large groups of crops to be affected by one kind of parasite or disease. Increase reliance on one species also broadens the neagtive affects of any disease or parasite that may infect said species.
Along with the importance of biodiversity, the continuation and protection of the natural environment and its resources serves a larger benefit than the economic benefits gained through the mining and processing of its resources. The Amazon Rainforest, the largest rainforest in the world, continually suffers from deforestation. Humans clear away the forest to create more space and land for agriculture, leading to the loss of plant and animal species. The agricultural land allows for futher economic development in South America; however, the land served a greater benefit when forested as it was one of the largest carbon sinks in the world. With the ever growing threat of climate change, engineers and scientist are attemping to develop methods of collecting and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The collection and storing of carbon is reffered to as a carbon sink, the largest of which is the Amazon Rainforest. The production of agricutural and through deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest results in destruction of the largest carbon sink in the world, and the carbon sink must eventually be replaced in another region of the world. The economic gain from the creation of agricultural land pales to the economic investment required to design, manufacture, and build a carbon sink of equal measure. “Today’s solutions are tomorrows problems.” While protecting these plant and animal species may not initially be worth the economic oppurutnity cost, it is a future compounding investment to the protection of our atmosphere, global temperatures, and carbon capture.
One argument against the protection of plant and animal species is the effort required would lead to great costs in money and jobs; however, the opposite has been proven true throughout the last century. Teddy Rosevelt began the National Parks and Forestry systems to ensure the protection of regions of natural environment in the United States. The Forestry program was also a response to the spiraling economy as he attempted to pull the United States out of its economic nascent. The restoration and protection of the natural environment led to the creation of thousands of jobs across the US as people were hired to plant native vegetation across the county. Young workers were encouraged to re-enter the workforce, and due to the nature of teh work, nearly every American could participate. There were little to no limits on education or class status to find work in forest restoration and protection, allowing the program to benefit nearly all Americans. Instead of a loss of jobs, the restoration and protection of the natural environemnt and its species led ot an overall increase in work and jobs across the US.
While the intial cost and initial oppurtunity cost of protecting the environment and its plant and animal species may not seem economical, the benefit of biodiversiyt, the proteciton of our natural resources is greatly worth its initiaial costs. Programs have been created in the past that both minimize costs of restoring and protecting the environment, and the protection of all environmental species allows for the securing of both humans and the planet’s future. Humans should put in effort, time, and money to protecting plant and animal species to ensure the continuation of biodiversity, carbon sinks, and treat their investment as an investment towards the protection of environmental, agricultural, and public health.