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 an

The opinion that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being plays on the culpability, hence responsibility, and the consequences of extinction of some species on humans. On the other hand, the belief that society must not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species stems from the idea of negligible effect or probability of extinction of some species. Depending upon the type of species under consideration, both opinions have some merits and neither can be ignored completely.

Foremost, human activities are a major cause for endangering the ecosystem and the existence of many species. Since the last century, to meet the need for industrialization, housing, employment and other amenities, forests have been unabatedly exploited for land, wood and other products. The interference with natural flora and fauna has damaged the balance of ecosystem and has brought many animals and plants to the verge of extinction. Moreover, illegal hunting practises have drastically brought down the numbers of many exotic wild animals. Whether it is killing Asian elephants for ivories or hunting of tigers for claws and skins, humans are directly culpable for threatening their existence. Therefore, it is morally binding upon society to make efforts towards the conservation of animals and plants endangered as a result of anthropogenic factors.

Another argument to support the first opinion deals with the fact that humans are a part of delicately complex ecosystem called biotic symbiosis where one species contributes to the survival and well-being of other. Extinction of one species can disturb crucial predator-prey relationship in the natural food chain which ultimately threatens our very existence. For example, bees pollinate a number of crops consumed by animals and humans. Without bees, not only those crops will become extinct but also the animals feeding on them will perish. Consequently, the society will struggle to feed the human population of billions. Similarly, many plants and herbs are source of some essential drugs and medicines. Their extinction will certainly be a huge loss to the society. Moreover, any indifference from society towards such endangered species would deprive nations from their natural heritage; next generations of nature enthusiasts from cherishing exotic wild- and plant- life; and researchers from examining diverse species.

Conversely, any government has the responsibility to fulfil citizens’ immediate needs of employment, education, healthcare, etc. using limited resources. Hence, as the second opinion asserts, it is neither possible nor justifiable for any government to make extra ordinary efforts in terms of money, efforts, and time to suffice for the conservation of every endangered plants and animals. It, then, becomes imperative for the society to prioritize the conservation needs of certain species over the other. Some species are at a considerably lower threat of extinction than the others as delineated by their conservation status. Similarly, the consequences to the balance of ecosystem is less or negligible in case of extinction of non-keystone species. This is also true for extinction that results from natural process such as diseases, floods, fire, etc - where only the fittest survives as per Darwinian principle. Certainly, extraordinary efforts to conserve such species are unwarranted.

However, problem arises in those situations when solving one problem entails compromise with the other. For example, African nations have acres of wilderness land but are still unable to provide food to its majority. Though, using such areas for commercial purposes may provide livelihood to a multitude; it may also result in extinction of many species. Now, it is at this juncture where any society faces a dilemma: whether it must ensure the survival of the endangered plants and animals or worry about the needs of the people? Yet, with a sustainable approach it can come up with innovative solution catering to both the needs. Conversion of wilderness areas into national parks in Tanzania aptly exemplifies such a wiser approach. This has not only ensured the constant income for local and national economy but also the preservation of those areas by the revenue generated through tourism related activities. Furthermore, eliminating the source of damage to plant and animal life is always easier than compensating for the damage. Hence, society must always encourage sustainable practices such as recycling, clean energy, pollution control, etc. to conserve the ecosystem and, thereby, its habitants.

In conclusion, owing to the moral obligation and need for self-preservation, species that are endangered by human activities or are important for our very well-being, should be saved by the society even if it requires extraordinary efforts. Contrarily, extra ordinary efforts are not justifiable for the conservation for those naturally endangered species whose extinction has either low probability or negligible consequences to the ecosystem balance. Finally, sustainable, not extra ordinary, efforts such as recycling, clean energy, etc. can account for the concerns raised by both the opinions.