When Sudan had put white rhinoceros on its own in the beginning of this year, he confirmed the extinction of one of Savannah’s most prestigious sub-species. Despite decades of conservationists efforts, Sudan proved to be a reluctant partner, with the fake Tinder profile for an animal called “The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World” and the last man of his death – died. Their daughter and granddaughter live – but, despite some miraculous success in Vitrio fertilization, this is just a matter of time.
The North White rhino will surely be mourned, as will be in the form of photographs, documentaries, and other officers of the collection of soft toys. But what about those species that we are less fond of, or perhaps completely unaware of? Will we mourn for obscure frogs, troubled beetles or terrible fungus? After extinction, it is indispensable in the natural world – some have even called it “the engine of growth”. So should the extinction be important to us?
First, there are strong practical arguments against biodiversity loss. Differentiation from different genes to species, gives ecological flexibility in the face of change. Ecosystems, in turn, keep the planet stable and provide the necessary services for human welfare. Prevents forest and wetland pollutants from entering our water supply, mangrove provides coastal defense by reducing the number of storms and green areas in urban areas, which reduce the rate of mental illness of the city’s diseases. The continued loss of biodiversity will further disrupt these services.
Due to resource extraction, there is a lot of risk in the environmental damage and the huge changes made by humans on the scenario. The world has never experienced these problems at the same time, and there is enough gambling to admit that we can do so much damage to our planet while at the same time it can sustain seven billion people living on it.
Although the irregular endangered natural resources of the Earth must definitely worry about the brave enough to investigate the evidence, it is worth to clarify that extinction is an issue in its right. Some environmental damage can be reversed; some unsuccessful ecosystem can be revived. Extinction is irreversibly final.
Studies of hazardous species indicate that, by looking at their characteristics, we can predict that species are prone to extinction. Animals with large bodies, for example, are more prone to prone to small levels – and it is also true for species at the top of the food chain. For plants, epiphytical is growing (not on another plant but as a parasite) leaves them at higher risk, like late blossoming.
This means that the extinction does not occur extinct in the ecosystem, but affects the same species affecting the same species equally. Given that ecosystems rely on particular groups of organisms for specific roles, such as pollination or seed dispersion, there may be much disruption to the loss of such a group. Imagine a disease that killed only medical professionals – it would be far more destructive for society, which randomly killed the same number of people.
This non-random pattern extends to evolutionary “tree-life”. Some closely related groups of species are limited to the same dangerous places (like LeMar in Madagascar) or share weak characteristics (such as meat), which means that the evolutionary tree can lose whole branches rather than the scattering of the leaves. Some close relatives, such as aye-aye or tuatara are also at higher risk. Their loss will affect the size of the tree unequally, and not to mention the removal of their strange and wonderful natural history stories.
The most regular counter argument argues that we should not worry about extinction, because it is a “natural process”. First of all, there is death too, but it does not follow that we are humble surrendered (especially before time or second hand).
But secondly, fossil records show that the current extinction level is about 1,000 times the natural background rate. They are excited about the introduction of housing loss, hunting, climate change and aggressive species and diseases. Amphibians look particularly sensitive for environmental change; the estimated extinction rates are estimated to be 45,000 times their natural speed. Most of these extinctions are unsafe, so we do not even know which species we are losing.
An unnecessary cost
but does it really matter that there are fewer types of frogs in the world? Let’s take a fictional, small, brown African frog that becomes extinct because the toxic waste pollutes its current. Frog has never been described by science, so no one is wise about its loss. Due to the large scale extinction on the ongoing scale, the separation of disaster movie-level ecosystem collapse, the internal value of the frog is the subject of opinion. It has been adapted for its special place for millions of years – for us, the authors, the loss of that perfectly balanced personality creates the world less space.
But ethics about biodiversity is easy when you do not have to live with it. The surprise of the nature of a person can be the suffering of another person, an orangutan can attack a poor farmer’s crop, or a leopard is snatching a cowboy’s livestock. Is also part of the rich tapestry of pathogenic life, but how many of us mourn the eradication of smallpox?