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 of species, the organizations held internal votes to decide which species to take away.
•The votes are emotionally draining
•The reason organizations do this is so that they can focus on the most important species.
•This type of sorting is called a triage.
•The Endangered Species Act was passed on 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
•Triage is a concern because it may encourage industries to exclude the species they are exploiting from the list of endangered species
•One way to prioritize a species is by its function
•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
•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 is called "function first" and "evolution first" methods
•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
Summary
In recent years, more and more conservation groups have decided to face a harsh reality: it is too late to save every species. Instead of spending valuable funding on thousands of species, some conservation groups have concluded that is best to focus on a select hundred. The rationality behind this is that the selected species will get prioritization 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, orders species based on their value to the ecosystem of their unique purpose. The second approach, is called the "evolution first" approach, which try to preserve genetic diversity, ultimately helping species to adapt to ever-changing environments. However, deciding which species hold the most value proves to 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. This approach was once popular, but has come under criticism due to various concerns that it may be oversimplifying a complex global issue. In general, this sort of preference to a species, also known as triage is controversial.
Reflection
I believe that humans should not have pushed the resources of the planet to the extent of several species going extinct; now these very individuals are scrambling to save what they can. Humans continue to reap what they sow; hence they are faced with an impossible mission of picking who must survive. It should not have come to a point when humans are picking the species that ‘deserves’ to survive; they would not have to had they not exploited the planet to this extent. It is both unfair to the other species, and arrogant of human beings to think they have the right to pick which species should be able to survive. Because it has come to the point of life and death; is there going to be a day when these very species will pick which of their own should be able to survive? Will this serve as an ultimatum and a lesson to the human race? Or is this just the beginning of humanity’s own demise?
•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 of species, the organizations held internal votes to decide which species to take away.
•The votes are emotionally draining
•The reason organizations do this is so that they can focus on the most important species.
•This type of sorting is called a triage.
•The Endangered Species Act was passed on 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
•Triage is a concern because it may encourage industries to exclude the species they are exploiting from the list of endangered species
•One way to prioritize a species is by its function
•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
•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 is called "function first" and "evolution first" methods
•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
Summary
In recent years, more and more conservation groups have decided to face a harsh reality: it is too late to save every species. Instead of spending valuable funding on thousands of species, some conservation groups have concluded that is best to focus on a select hundred. The rationality behind this is that the selected species will get prioritization 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, orders species based on their value to the ecosystem of their unique purpose. The second approach, is called the "evolution first" approach, which try to preserve genetic diversity, ultimately helping species to adapt to ever-changing environments. However, deciding which species hold the most value proves to 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. This approach was once popular, but has come under criticism due to various concerns that it may be oversimplifying a complex global issue. In general, this sort of preference to a species, also known as triage is controversial.
Reflection
I believe that humans should not have pushed the resources of the planet to the extent of several species going extinct; now these very individuals are scrambling to save what they can. Humans continue to reap what they sow; hence they are faced with an impossible mission of picking who must survive. It should not have come to a point when humans are picking the species that ‘deserves’ to survive; they would not have to had they not exploited the planet to this extent. It is both unfair to the other species, and arrogant of human beings to think they have the right to pick which species should be able to survive. Because it has come to the point of life and death; is there going to be a day when these very species will pick which of their own should be able to survive? Will this serve as an ultimatum and a lesson to the human race? Or is this just the beginning of humanity’s own demise?