Species come and go, has this been increasing because Mother Nature wants it? Or are human beings the one to be blamed? For now we can only conserve and hope for the best.
Why are we too late to realise the consequences? Is there time left? What can be done that best suits the environment? Is humankind a self-serving species?
It so seems that human society has became so sophisticated because of one motivating thing in life: incentives.
To what extent do incentives form the basis of human inertia?
To what extent do incentives make humankind unique?
This article was very interesting to read; it has some questions that I'd never asked. For instance, "Do these species have a right to survive or do we have a right to drive them to extinction?"
And the last sentence of the article was quite impressive, which says that some species contribute in their way for the earth although their values are not easily noticeable.
But the article's content was quite obvious. It only talks about the value of species, and thus we, human beings, should try to save these endangered/threatened species. I think it would've been better for the writer to at least mention some possible ways to conserve and possible obstacles for the conservation besides people's indifference. This way, I think the article could have been more linked to its readers and seen as more realistic, or this article can be just seen as an idealistic report.
My KI that I came up after reading this article is, "How much do benefits/values intrigue people's attentions?"
The article predicts that people won't give much attention to enlisted endangered species because some of their values are not hardly noticeable. Would it mean that people would endeavor to conserve some threatened/endangered species only for their benefits?
Human are part of animal, then do we (all human) have right to decide whether the animal has value or not? We (animals and humans) are all 'living thing', then why humans focus on benefit of the animals? and also, since humans are killing many animals for their benefits, such as ivory, fur, and etc. Do we have 'right' kill them? How can we decide 'right' for something?
The article has been focuses on the VALUE of the species, and my question here is if people are really willing to protect the species if they cannot bring a direct economic value to the society.
Or making it more likely a ToK KI, I will say,
To what extent that people/governments are willing to take care of those species that has no economic values?
Like this article says, animals or organisms have their value which determined by HUMAN.
HUMAN can determine everything in their perspective?
Earth is owned by human? Do we actually have right to value other organisms, harm them, and protect them?
KI: To what extent can it be claimed that it is humans fault for the accelerated rate of extinction our planet is facing?
After reading this article it was regretful, that what we have benn using made unique animals to danger. Do we have right to destroy their habitats? Do we have right to use land whatever we want? This animals have lived longer than us. But we ignore them because we are much stronger.
The article clearly has gave us the need to stop and think about different species presence.
I also agree with the report's author, Ellen Butcher's idea that all species have their own special uniqueness, and have value and need to maintain them; once they disappear, nothing can replace them!
Though I personally think that all the species has the right to be kept safely and flourish in population, some people would still doubt whether or not conserving species would benefit them. This leads to a moral issue; Does animals have their right just like us humans?
In order to conserve each different unique species, it is important for countries all over the world to make their people aware of keeping animals safe and healthy; adverts, schools, books etc.
Although unseen, the world is connected in some way. The species that contribute in their own way to make the world and nature go much better than when they don't exist!
To be honest, it's not surprise and I cannot feel anything about this article. This stuffs always in daily news and even in tv channels. People all know about global warming, animal experiments, polar bears in the pole, or endangered animal. My point is who cares about it?
When we watch TV documentary or movies about Environment like 'The Home', people remind the importance of nature, and after they watched, they just forget about it.
We are studying about the extinction and endangered species and we can suggest the reasons and solutions but those are nothing. Whatever we learn the idea, it never help to save polar bears or other species.
Well, there are group of people who trying to save our plantet such as PETA, Green Peace and blah blah. But they are only few of us, and we cannot save the plannet with few tiny ants.
Every one can suggest solution, everybody knows what's wrong and right, everybody knows the what should we do. But we never follow, because we don't get any disadvantages yet. People says 'Weather is getting hot, it's all about global warming blah blah' and decrease the temperature of air conditioners. This is the reality. Before we meet the huge risk or disadvantages that cannot covered by our technologies, we will never, ever do something for our environment. I'm pretty sure there is no one who can easily sacrifice their convinient life with technologies for environment. Well, if we are lucky so scientist may invent super fuels and super food and we can live without animals and plants. But now, we have no that kinds of technologies.
Questions like 'We have right to drive species to extinction or not' are nothing. Because, no one aimed to exterminate those species. Those species are exterminate by human activities. So whatever we have the right or not, that's not a point. Here is my question.
- Can we sacrifice for other species
- When will we sacrifice and will be changed
Do we have right to destroy nature? we are part of nature. But we are using nature for our benefits. It is human fault that species are extinct, so human need to save endanger species.
Is there a bias in the way the report names on the world's 100 most endandered species? What about small groups or smaller organisms that are difficult to collect and identify, or which have not attracted scientific attention? Can we reliably comment on species' extinction rates?
In the article it says that the donor community and conversation movement are leaning towards firstly saving animals that are related to us, that are valuable to us. Environmentalists say that this is wrong and it is harder and harder for them to save some species such as many plants and fungi that are unrelated to human. The main question that rises here is whether all animals have the right to survive or humans could just ignore the lives of them.
Basically this article is about animals in danger of extinction. This article aware me to importance of protecting anmial species. They are so valuable that there is a quote "All the species listed are unique and irreplaceable. If they vanish, no amount of money can bring them back." This bring me a question "Is animals are valuable as people do?' Because sometime there is a situation to kill the animal for humans saftey and their desire. Is it worthy to protect animals by giving some inconvenient and disadvantages?
To what extinct does human and animals are not equally valuable? "There is a fear among some conservationists that many of the plants and fungi listed will not be saved or gain public attention because they don't benefit humans." Should human not safe the animals just because thy are not beneficial to us?
In this article, it said that many of the plants and fungi listed as 'danger of extinction' will not be saved or gain public attention because they don't benefit humans. It's a plant which affect to the nature environment, but why conservationist fear about not gaining public attention? If some plant or fungi from list causes a harmful affect to human, there will be a public attention even if it's not a benefit to them. So, the KI that I can come up with is "What is the criteria of "benefit" to human in terms of intriguing public attention ?"(KI)
1. Read the article.2. Write your thoughts.3. Begin your post with a Knowledge Issue (KI).4. See me or Mr. Jones if you need help with your KI.