There are little justifications for society to make extraordinary efforts — especially at a great cost in money and jobs — to save endangered animal or plant species. ‘ This quote by philosopher and essayist Bill McKibben proposes the question of whether society should invest great resources in saving endangered species. His argument seems to suggest that such efforts are not justified because species go extinct anyway, regardless of a society’s actions. One may agree with him that endangered animals or plants may die regardless of the efforts of a society, but such a position is not sustainable

The premise of the argument is that endangered animals or plants die regardless of society’s actions. It has the merit of being true; however, it ignores the fact that all species, regardless of being endangered or not, eventually die. Whether an endangered species dies tomorrow or in the next two hundred years, the species will die. This is a fact of life. Animals and plants do not evade death; they merely move their dates of death. Like McKibben, we who hold this belief may be too quick to blame society for the death of an endangered species. First, we must remember that we are part of nature, and our actions have consequences. Second, and perhaps more importantly, we must acknowledge that our populations are growing at an unprecedented rate. With more people comes more demand for natural resources. In an age where the human population continues to grow, the demand for certain resources, such as timber, food, and fossil fuels, will surpass supply. If we continue to simply buy our way out of this problem by importing resources from other regions, such as from South America, we will become unsustainable, environmentally and financially. A logical argument can be made in favor of saving endangered species because they are a bellwether of the well-being of our environment. If the population of an endangered species, such as a whale, is declining, it indicates that our influence on the planet is reducing. Similarly, if the population of a species increases, it may indicate that we have successfully restored a species to health after its population had been decimated. In addition, we must not forget the fundamental fact that if there were no humans, there would be no endangered species. If there were no humans, the extinction of species would simply happen naturally, without any human involvement. Therefore, it is humans who are responsible for the survival of endangered species. It is our responsibility to conserve what we can while eradicating what we cannot

The criteria that McKibben uses to determine whether society should expend extraordinary efforts to save an endangered species are not without merit. First, the rarity or uniqueness of the animal or plant must be high. A species that is nearly extinct, such as the passenger pigeon, cannot be saved as easily as an animal or plant that is common, such as the Oregon grape. Second, the extinction of a species must be severe, such as when an entire species dies out. This criterion is correct. Studies have found that the extinction of an entire species is far more devastating to biodiversity than the loss of one species, since extinction causes certain species to become extinct as well. Third, the extinction of a species must be extreme, such as when an entire species dies out. This criterion is also correct. While the loss of a species may not seem severe, it is devastating to that species. Each plant and animal species has a unique evolutionary history. If an entire species dies out, then its evolutionary history is erased, and that species can no longer serve a purpose in the ecosystem. Finally, the extinction of a species must be permanent. This criterion is incorrect. There are examples of species that have persisted despite extinction. The coelacanth, for example, was thought to be extinct until 1938, when a living specimen was captured in the Indian Ocean. Finally, McKibben is correct in arguing that humans are responsible for the extinction of species. Human hunting, land development, and overconsumption of natural resources have decimated numerous species. However, he fails to acknowledge that humans are also responsible for many species’ survival. For example, Native Americans hunted deer to near extinction, but when they ceased hunting them, the deer flourished, and today there are millions of deer populating the forests of the United States

In conclusion, McKibben is correct that rare and unique animals or plants cannot be saved by society, but his argument ignores the fact that all species die. Moreover, we are responsible for the survival of many species, and societies must conserve what we can while eradicating what we cannot.