Is the money spent on saving endangered species worth it? The endangered species are facing extinction day by day at an alarming rate that is why it is important human beings do everything to save the natural resources. Human beings cannot exist alone. We have a codependent relationship with the environment. A study conducted in 2012 showed that it would cost a jaw-dropping $76 billion every year to protect endangered animals (Marshall 2015). Saving the threatened marine species may require even much more. This paper aims to show whether the costs used to protect endangered species are worth it. To determine whether the expenses used to protect endangered species are worth it, I am going to analyze the argument from both sides.
The first reason humans should incur expenditure is that plants are a source of medicinal value. Digitalis is a drug which is gotten from the purple foxglove. It is a beneficial drug which has prevented a lot of deaths. Digitalis is used in the treatment of fluid retention, congestive heart failure (CHF), asthma, irregular heartbeat, tuberculosis, heartbeat, epilepsy, spasm, constipation, spasm, and headache. It can also be used in the treatment of burns and wounds. It means that if the purple foxglove becomes extinct, its benefit as a source of medicine will be lost. A lot of plants are becoming extinct without us knowing. The plants could have essential compounds which can increase the human lifespan. There are animals which also have medicinal properties for example bees. The honeybee products thwart microbes from flourishing. Leeches have secretions that prevent inflammation and coagulation. Sharks are also used to study whether they can be used to treat muscle degeneration and certain types of cancer. Less than 1% of the world plant species have been screened to check if they may have any medicinal value ("Why Care? - National Wildlife Federation"). At the rate which extinction is growing, experts have come up with a conclusion that the world loses a significant drug every two years. A cure for AIDs or cancer may be an animal or plant that may almost be in the brink of extinction. Some plants that are becoming extinct may hold the key to increase our agricultural production.
The second reason why endangered species should be protected at all costs is that they are a source of agricultural value. Some wild plant species genes could be used to improve the crops which human beings grow today. Some of the genes that scientists extract from plant DNAs are of disease or pest resistance, drought resistance, and salt tolerance. The properties can help fight the effects of global climate change. Genetic engineering for example genetically modified products have helped attain food security. For example, the genetic material from a type of wild corn species helped stop a leaf fungus which had previously wiped out 15% of the United States corn crop (Balmford et al. 2002). Thus, it increases crop production. People will have access to affordable and sufficient, nutritious, and quality food. While there are concerns about the cost used to modify plant species genetically, the products are beneficial in that they help us achieve food security. Animals for example spiders and geckos also act as natural pest riddance agents. Geckos eat up to five different kinds of pests and spiders eat cockroaches. The benefits used in the protection of endangered species outweigh the costs.
The first reason why it is not essential to protect the endangered species is the enormous costs involved. We need to weigh whether it is worth it spending all that cash on wildlife instead of using it to help people who are suffering from diseases or dying of starvation. It is hard to fathom why one would be interested in saving wolves which eat both humans and livestock (Mccarthy, et al. 2012). They are a threat to humans, and they are a species which we would be better off not having them in the ecosystem. In any way, species are becoming extinct individual species have been disappearing, archaeologists have proven that there have been five mass extinctions that have made many species disappear entirely. A massive extinction that occurred 65 million years ago wiped out dinosaurs. Over the last century, the rate of extinction has increased five times as more. It seems that extinction is a process which occurs naturally; therefore, we should not stop it.
The impulse that humans have has made us have an unsupported, unnecessary, and unthinking, urgency to conserve the environment yet it is a natural process. Extinction brings about evolution. Natural selection does away with those that cannot adapt easily and the ones that withstand the harsh circumstances flourish. Species are always going extinct and one which may be alive today will one day go extinct. There is no endangered species; all species are endangered at one point of their existence (Pyron 2017). The only worthy reason for conserving biodiversity is to benefit ourselves in the future even though it means we alter the ecosystem and destroy other species. It is bound to happen because we need to cultivate food for consumption, build industries and houses and a part of the environment needs to be destroyed to achieve that. Human beings are a part of the biosphere, and our actions have consequences on the environment. Conserving endangered species which are in danger of extinction because of our actions in the first place aims to expel our guilt and nothing else.
Conclusion
Endangered species may hold very many answers to problems that are currently facing human beings hence the money spent on saving them is worth it. Some people may not see the use of spending money on saving endangered species because the cost involved may be too much and secondly extinction is a part of evolution so every plant or animal will be an endangered species at one point in time. However, there may be an endangered species out there that holds the cure to AIDS or cancer and cures for many illnesses have been found from plants and animals that are almost being wiped out. The endangered species may hold the solution on how to genetically engineer crops that are resistant to drought, pest, and disease. In the long run, the money spent on saving endangered species is worth it because they hold solutions to problems that we currently face and may face in the future.
Works Cited
Balmford, Andrew, et al. “Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature.” Science, vol. 297, no. 5583, Sept. 2002, pp. 950–953., doi:10.1126/science.1073947.
Marshall, Michael. “Earth - What Is the Point of Saving Endangered Species?” BBC News, BBC, 14 July 2015, www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150715-why-save-an-endangered-species.
Mccarthy, D. P., et al. “Financial Costs of Meeting Global Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs.” Science, vol. 338, no. 6109, Nov. 2012, pp. 946–949., doi:10.1126/science.1229803.
Pyron, R. Alexander. “We Don't Need to Save Endangered Species. Extinction Is Part of Evolution.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Nov. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?noredirect=on"utm_term=.eb2a730d0e58.
“Why Care? - National Wildlife Federation.” National Wildlife Federation, www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Wildlife/medicinalbenefits9-06.ashx.
