【issue121 gter三月机考小组090117的第一次作业】

nortromUID: 2591367

121. "At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species." 在过去不同的地质时期，很多物种的灭绝都是自然因素造成，而并非人类行为。所以，社会没有理由花费很大的人力物力去拯救濒临灭绝的物种


I agree with the broad assertion of the speaker that we human do not morally have to save endangered species which are not influenced by human processes. However this could not reduce the responsibility of us on environmental problems or other actions which have potential threat to animals.

One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is about cost and earnings. In a world of utilitarianism, we cannot help analyzing the potential profit and risk of a typical investment. As far as we can see, there are no clear indications showing considerable reward for rescuing every endangered species. An apt illustration could be the situation in a developing country whose government will surely assign a higher priority to develop economy even at the cost of environment or nature resource, not to say some sacrifice of the endangered animals. Although the environmentalists have a lot of critics about that, there is still not enough evidence to condemn such behavior. Even in the developed country, it is hard to formulate a plan to save the endangered species before we have known all the relationship among them, the best way to save them, and what kind of impact it will have on our lives. In fact, what we have already known is very little.

Another reason for my agreement is that we cannot give a clear definition of ‘nature’. This is not sophistry. But we cannot tell which way is more natural? Save those endangered species or let it be? According to nature selection theory of Darwin, we human beings are just a part of history. We took over the world and perhaps someday in the future the host of the earth will be another species. Moreover, most species extinct without human processes and we never mean to eliminate any of them. And the concept that we can save the endangered species also seems to be kind of conceited. It sounds like we can decide the destiny of animals. On the whole, solving these philosophical problems may be even harder than saving these species.

Yet we can and should take some steps according to our existing experience. Those species which are on the top of the food chain are important to ecological system. And they are more sensitive to the changes of environment. For example, tigers cannot live without eating vegetable-feeded animals. If the number of these animals decreased, the tigers will not find enough food and are likely to die. I can list many similar cases and these species can be saved with quiet a little social cost. Even out of charity, the government will make the right decision which will also meet the wish of most citizens.

In the final analysis, this is a complex issue refers to many moral, social and philosophical problems which have not definite answers yet. So may be it is wise for the government to make a comparison between profits and cost before making any decision.
words 491