When we learned about extinction and endangered species in my Environmental Issues class this semester, I was surprised to hear many students in the class express opinions of apathy on the subject. "Why should we care," I remember one person asking. "What does it matter to us?"
A lot of my fellow students seemed to think that the development of the human race was more important than a few species of plants and animals disappearing from the face of the earth. And by a few, I mean hundreds of species becoming extinct just in recent times.
I couldn't understand this viewpoint at all. I care a lot about plant and animal species becoming extinct, and I think we should all care a lot. First of all, the mass extinction that is occurring right now is largely and undeniably due to humans. So there should be a certain level of guilt here.
Studying the relationship between the development of human culture and the extinction of animal species is a sobering experience. The spread of civilization has been accompanied by a drastic reduction of animal numbers and by reduced diversity of animal species. Fairly accurate records are available since the sixteenth century, when the western world became conscious of its impact on animals. During this period, the number of worldwide animal extinctions increased considerably.
It is not just the guilt factor that should make us care about extinction, though. Extinction has some very serious implications for mankind and for the Earth in general.
When endangered species become extinct, the world loses an animal, surely, but an ecosystem somwhere loses a functioning part. Eliminating a species from any natural community changes the relationships among community members, and the system no longer works in the same way. The seriousness of the change depends on the role of the eliminated species in the functioning community and the degree of the dependence of the community on its biological complexity. In some cases it is likely that little change would be evident, but in others, the loss of several species or a single key species could have serious consequences. As the impoverishment of communities in terms of species composition continues, the web of interrelationships may be weakened, perhaps to the point of unraveling.
Numerous examples illustrate how this may happen, at least on a small scale. In agriculture, replacement of natural vegetation by single crop species lowers community diversity. The monoculture is ecologically simple, and requires huge energy subsidies from man to maintain it. When insecticides are applied to control pest insects, beneficial insect predators and parasites are sometimes killed off, leaving an unchecked pest population to rebound in greater numbers than before. When stream environments are modified by sewage pollution, or channelization, a few species capable of withstanding the disturbance of exploiting extreme environments (such as mosquitoes, for instance) may occur in great numbers and become a pest problem.
Although these examples are somewhat simplistic, they point to the potentially critical situation that could arise in many of the world's remaining ecosystems if more species become extinct. Some ecosystems depend on key species such as predators, which may play a major role in the maintenance of species diversity or in the control of prey populations, and decomposer organisms, which help to recycle nutrients. If these key species become extinct, disasterous consequences could follow.
The capacity of ecosystems to rebound from human disturbance is limited by the amount of time between disturbances, the size of the area, and the distance from populations that could recolonize a disturbed area. As forests, prairies, marshes, and other nautral ecosystems become fragmented and smaller in size due to human development, chances for extinction of animals become greater. The possibility that an ecosystem might be irreparably damaged by the removal of a single species may then increase as well.
If there is a lesson we should have learned from our past and present ecological crises, it is that living things and their environments are interrelated. The ecological consequences of pollution, ecosystem alteration, or extinction of animals may not be immediate or obvious. Damage to biological systems, however, may be irreparable and may not be discovered until it is too late. Reducing the diversity of animal species by extinction means permanently removing the components from complex processes in many ecosystems. Unless stopped, it can only result in an ecologically simple world whose future would be unstable at best.
Even efforts to preserve rare species in parks, zoos, and preserves, while commendable, may prove futile. Such species may no longer reproduce successfully when removed from their natural habitat. Plus, small captive populations may lack the genetic diversity necessary for survival when reintroduced to natural conditions.
If we do not do something fast and increase our efforts to save endangered species, we will not be able to decelerate the worldwide extinction process, and human survival itself may be at stake. Mankind probably cannot survive in a biosphere devoid of diversity for very long.
That is why we should care!
-RebelSteve
-------------------- Namaste.
|