Ecological Ethics - Report Example

Ecological Ethics Species of both large and small animals are endangered due to the impacts of human beings. The problem is what man does to the environment and his need to secure life by hunting some animals for personal reasons such as food, sport, and medicine. Human beings burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, heat homes, and power cars. This in turn increases greenhouse gases and result to the warming of the atmosphere. Resulting climatic changes in the environment change the animals’ habitats or threaten there survival. Forests cleared by man for farming and wood eliminate the ecosystem required by some species. Polar bears are a species that are in the midst of mass extinction (Ashraf 23). Polar bears are found in the arctic region, being the first animals to be categorized as the most endangered animals and are threatened to become extinct. Their diet generally consists of seal, fish, birds, caribou, grass, and seaweed, but sometimes they feed on whales that loss their way and come to the shores. Polar bears are excessively hunted for their meat, hides, fat, and tendons. If Polar bears were to be extinct, the arctic food chain will ultimately be affected. Additionally, depending on the importance of this species, it will either have a small or huge impact on the environment and the social life of man (Bourke 69). If the food chain is damaged; it is probable that other animals fed on by this species will become extinct along with it and those species hunted by the polar bears. Extinction of polar bears would mean that the seal population increases and consequently, all the food for seals will decrease. With time, seal food would disappear, leading to the death of some seals due to starvation. Several other scavenger carnivores do depend on at least the kills of polar bears. Failure to save this endangered species will for instance, result in the loss of animals like arctic fox (Koeberl and Kenneth 43). Just like the deer in Aldo Leopold’s “ecological ethics in thinking like mountain” would rejoice for the availability of abundant flesh if the wolf was extinct, seals in the arctic region would feast on small fish in the absence of the polar bear. Similarly, when polar bears get extinct, seals die for starvation, there would be a likelihood of an increase in fish, which would in turn feed more on sea weed and algae. On the other hand, grass, which is also a diet for polar bears would grow on a large scale, especially along sea shores. People in the arctic region do hunt seals, caribous, and whales for food during winter seasons. The disappearance of polar bears would mean more meat and skin for the arctic human population (Bourke 69-73). As much as we argue that the extinction of polar bears is an advantage to the arctic species like seals, fish, and some human population, this predator performs a very vital role in its habitat and in the food chain. It helps to control and regulate the number of other species. When a class of species loses its natural predators, sickness, overpopulation, and mass die offs may be a resultant effect. Furthermore, overpopulated species can have a direct impact in under populating other species. For example, a huge boom in arctic seals population would have a direct impact on those preying on seals, and could lead in a reduction of certain types of crustaceans and fish. This could affect human beings directly, who might be forced to compete with arctic seals for food from fish. If men want a rationale to save the endangered polar bears, the reason exists in the way lack of this species could finally affect commercial fishing industries and human food supply. The idea that no species, inclusive of human beings, survives without dependence on others might be the most significant reason for man to save polar bears. Though thee are many arguments for why we should not wipe out species, another question still pops out; can we really save them? It is an issue that Scientists debate over, because of what seems to be fast deprivation of some species in their ecosystem in past years. The US ecological Survey has frightening predictions of our ability to save the species before declining fully. For instance, if the bears will not able to adapt to the changing climatic conditions, they might face nearly total extinction prior to the end of the 21st century, while close to 66% of the species disappearing come 2050 (Aars and Nicholas 56). There are many perspectives that man can view the prevention of extinction. Generally, it depends on the ethical values we place on species. Some people believe that only those species that we appreciate and value are the ones to be conserved or protected. Fortunately, such people are only a minority (Miller and Spoolman 99). Species conservation depends on the reason for it being endangered. If it concerns human interference, for example over hunting and land clearance, then the species is not dying naturally, hence extinction should be avoided. However, if the species is endangered for innate purposes, for example populations surpassing the carrying capacity, then preventing its extinction is unnecessary, even though it is painful to watch a species die. If such extinction is prevented, it could interfere with the ecological balance. Several precautions may be taken to help slow down warming tendencies and help delay polar bear extinction. These include measures like developing energy sources which do not release greenhouse gases, in addition to avoiding making incursions on polar bear habitat that is still stable (Marshal Cavendish Corporation 110-113). There is a need for restrictions governing hunting. Governments should declare it an illegal practice and the penalties for violating this rule must be very tough. Most people will not stop hunting if the punishment for breaking the rule is a fine, since parting with some cash is no pain for some of the hunters. Instead, a term of jail would work best as no one will wish to end up with such. It should also be illegal to transport any part of an extinct animal, to reduce hunting. This is because it will be much more risky to sell the species’ meat, skin, or any other valuable part. By taking early actions, based on scientific evidence, a lot can be done to save the extinct species, and this is the reason why efforts for their protection is not based on the number of the left species but on the chances of their survival with the changes in environment (Miller and Spoolman 89-91). Currently, species extinction has raised concern among several non-governmental organizations to promote conservation attempts for such animals, for the reason that there is a possibility of a brighter future for animals such as polar bears. It may seem like not too much is being done when you look at it shallowly, but as you go deeper into such associations, you realize some of them have set goals to be accomplished in less than five years. People should also stop dumping wastes, toxins, and other pollutants in oceans and in woodlands (Tudge 77-81). For instance, water pollution endangers some types of fish that are of more use to human consumption, thus, their extinction would lead to starvation for man. We should learn how to utilize whatever we have in a more productive way and stop consuming much of wildlife and marine meat. Biodiversity is one of the reasons for species conservation. The existence of a variety of species creates a colored nature. Moreover, by losing one animal, the entire ecosystem is in a mess. For example, there might be many species of bees that we do not realize there importance, but when preserved, we benefit from them at certain times. Above all arguments, we are co-creators with God, and therefore man has a responsibility to keep the earth a sparkling place to live for the succeeding generations and a duty to let it grow. Works Cited Ashraf, Elewa. Mass Extinction. New York: Springer, 2008. Print. Bourke, Jan. Endangered Species of the World. London: Ready-Ed Publications, 2005. Print. Koeberl, Christine & Kenneth, G. MacLeodCatastrophic events and mass extinctions: Impacts and beyond. New York: Geological Society of America, 2002. Print. Tudge, Collin. Last Animals at the Zoo: How Mass Extinction Can Be Stopped. Island Press, 1992. Print. Collins, James. Extinction in Our Times: Global Amphibian Decline. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Aars, Jon and Nicholas, Jeremy. Lunn. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 14th working meeting of the IUCN. Mexico: IUCN, 2006. Print. Marshal Cavendish Corporation. Endangered Wildlife and Plants of the World. London: Marshall Cavendish, 2001. Print. Miller, Tyler and Spoolman, Scott. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions. New York: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Miller, Tyler and Spoolman, Scott. Sustaining the Earth: An Integrated Approach. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Read More