Which Species to Save? Article summary
Main ideas:
In recent years, more and more conservation groups have decided to face a harsh reality: they can't save everything. Instead of spending valuable funding on thousands of species, some conservation groups have decided to focus on a select hundred or so. The logic behind this is that each species will get more attention, and will therefore have a better chance of surviving. Most of these groups decide on which species to save by choosing one of three approaches. The first approach, also known as the "function first" approach, prioritizes species based on whether they serve a unique purpose, or are essential to an entire ecosystem's health. The second approach, known as the "evolution first" approach, aims to preserve genetic diversity, which may help species to adapt to ever-changing environments. However, deciding which species are a priority can be difficult if an entire evolutionary tree of species is endangered. In these cases, species that are genetically distinct, beneficial to other species, and important culturally are preferred. The third approach combines the first two and looks at preserving entire ecosystems, not individual species. This approach was once popular, but has come under criticism recently because many are concerned that is is oversimplifying a complex global issue. In general, this sort of preference to a species, also known as triage is controversial.
Reflection
I believe we should use the triage method. Although it is difficult to choose which species will go extinct, triage is more effective. A limited amount of resources (funding) is used to focus just on a select hundred species. This affects my personal life since I love species for many reasons, like aesthetics, but I want to save the whole ecosystem than just one.
Main ideas:
- There are many endangered species in the world, but some conservation groups have chosen to ignore all but a couple hundred
- To shorten down their list, the organizations hold internal votes to decide which species to drop
- This has proven tough for many to do.
- In most cases, the votes are emotionally draining
- The reason organizations do this is so that they can focus on the most important species, rather than "wasting" resources on those that do not serve any purpose
- This type of sorting goes back historically to battlefield medical care, and is called triage
- The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, treats all species as equals, regardless of value
- In the 1980s, timber and fishing industries tried to change the Endangered Species Act for their own interests
- This attempt has made the ecological community suspicious of any change since then
- Triage is a concern because it may encourage industries to exclude the species they are exploiting from the list of endangered species
- Many argue, however, that unintentional triage is constantly occurring through funding differences
- One way to prioritize a species is by its function
- This approach, called "function first", favors species with a unique purpose or those that ensure the survival of others
- "Function first" prioritization has the advantage of preserving the general function of an ecosystem, but is only useful where such ecosystems are understood
- Another approach is the "evolution first" method of prioritization
- The goal of the "evolution first" method is to preserve genetic diversity, which will help adaptation in environments that are rapidly changing
- However, if an entire evolutionary tree of species is endangered, it is hard to choose which one will be saved
- In these cases, many factors are explored, including: benefits to other species, genetic distinctiveness, cultural importance, and charisma (the latter two are useful for acquiring funds)
- Still another approach involves preserving entire ecosystems, not just species
- This approach was popular because it combined the "function first" and "evolution first" methods
- However, this method has recently come under criticism, raising concerns that it is oversimplifying a global issue
- Efforts are underway to refine the concept using complex computer models
- Species that don't make the list can also serve as a "call for action" for other conservation groups to help
- Also, triage may encourage "short term over long term" justification when funding is low
In recent years, more and more conservation groups have decided to face a harsh reality: they can't save everything. Instead of spending valuable funding on thousands of species, some conservation groups have decided to focus on a select hundred or so. The logic behind this is that each species will get more attention, and will therefore have a better chance of surviving. Most of these groups decide on which species to save by choosing one of three approaches. The first approach, also known as the "function first" approach, prioritizes species based on whether they serve a unique purpose, or are essential to an entire ecosystem's health. The second approach, known as the "evolution first" approach, aims to preserve genetic diversity, which may help species to adapt to ever-changing environments. However, deciding which species are a priority can be difficult if an entire evolutionary tree of species is endangered. In these cases, species that are genetically distinct, beneficial to other species, and important culturally are preferred. The third approach combines the first two and looks at preserving entire ecosystems, not individual species. This approach was once popular, but has come under criticism recently because many are concerned that is is oversimplifying a complex global issue. In general, this sort of preference to a species, also known as triage is controversial.
Reflection
I believe we should use the triage method. Although it is difficult to choose which species will go extinct, triage is more effective. A limited amount of resources (funding) is used to focus just on a select hundred species. This affects my personal life since I love species for many reasons, like aesthetics, but I want to save the whole ecosystem than just one.