Why some scientists refuse to save endangered animals

According to science, it is normal to occur, every 50 or 100 million years, a mass extinction on Earth, characterized by the disappearance of up to 95% of existing species. And the researchers believe that, right now, we are experiencing yet another process like this. Therefore, many of them defend the controversial thesis that there is no point in trying to save species that are at risk, since, at some point, mass extinction will occur and nature must take its course.

O awesome.club discovered the reasons why some scholars believe that rescuing animals in danger of extinction is not necessary, and, on the contrary, can harm nature.

Extinction is a natural process that accompanies evolution. With this, nature gets rid of poorly adapted species, favoring the more resistant ones. This view is supported by biologist R. A. Pyron of the Department of Biological Sciences at the Columbian College of Arts and Science. He believes that the very concept of an endangered species is fundamentally wrong, since, in fact, they all gradually disappear.

Faced with the thesis that many animals are disappearing because of man, this expert responds with a simple explanation. Pyron says that the change produced by people is artificial only at first glance. We are part of the Planet’s ecosystem and our actions are as legitimate as they are natural. If the species disappears, it will sooner or later be replaced by a new one. Naturally this is a long process which, under natural conditions, can hardly be observed.

Therefore Pyron believes that people’s attempts to save endangered animals are nothing more than a release of their feelings of guilt.

Along with extinction, other processes also occur, such as the alteration of ecosystems. The most famous case is the artificial restocking of wolves in Yellowstone Park (USA), where a large number of deer and elk lived. Of course, the predators that arrived ended up significantly reducing the population of these animals, which in turn led to an increase in the amount of plants such as poplars, contributing to the increase in the beaver population. In addition, scientists have discovered less obvious consequences of this situation:

Just two years after the wolves returned, the coyote population has declined by two. The number of foxes competing with coyotes increased significantly. As the first animals ate small rodents, which fed on roots, leaves, nuts and other plant products, the local flora underwent significant changes.

In China during the Cultural Revolution a similar situation occurred. To increase productivity in crops, the local government decided to exterminate the sparrows. During the first year, the harvest increased, but the following year, the population of locusts and caterpillars grew catastrophically. The harvest was reduced, causing famine.

That is, the main problem of preserving a species is that it is completely impossible to predict how nature will react with the mass return of an animal that was destined to extinction or with massive killing, altering the ecosystem.

Spending to save animals in danger of extinction varies from country to country and, of course, the type of species. By some estimates, around $64 billion is invested annually worldwide. The money goes towards organizing and maintaining the reserves, improving the legal framework and, of course, fighting poachers. As the scientists themselves correctly point out, this amount is small, considering that the well-being of the ecosystem, and therefore of man, is at stake. However, this amount of resources is often inaccessible to governments in poorer countries. And there is still the question of the allocation of resources, which could be used for other purposes, such as health and education.

For example, in the State of Florida (USA), authorities are desperately trying to preserve an endangered cougar. Despite the annual effort of the project with an amount of 50 to 100 million dollars, the population of these felines has barely increased. In this sense, the rulers have to ask themselves a reasonable question: is it worth spending so much money in an attempt to save what, apparently, will be destroyed anyway?

Experts have a simple answer: if you don’t invest in saving species now, later on you will have to spend even more on indirect and unforeseen issues. For example, the destruction of bees will lead to a sharp increase in food prices and the massive death of vultures could cause an increase in the number of cases of rabies and, consequently, medical expenses in public health systems.

The lack of genetic diversity can lead to very serious consequences and even the complete degeneration of species, including humans. And there are many examples of this type in the history of humanity: to stick to a well-known one, Charles II, King of Spain, was the heir to a six-century tradition of consanguineous marriages. As a result, he was unable to chew his food properly. The King also had a number of physical and mental problems, all attributed to intermarriage between his relatives in the past.

The same goes for animals. The most famous case is the tiger named Kenny, who lives in a reserve in the United States. Officially, the animal was diagnosed with Down syndrome. Tiger’s parents were blood brothers, which caused such a pathology.

The main way to save a species is to raise animals in captivity until they reach a reasonable population. Then the young individuals are released.

This is what happened to some species of condor. Caretakers used special dolls similar to birds during the rearing of the chicks precisely so that the birds would detach from them. It was necessary that young people did not try to imitate a person, perceiving him as a father. But, despite the precautionary measures taken, the released birds often visited people and showed an unhealthy interest in them. This has led to a cultural divide between wild condors and those that grew up in the reserve.

To preserve a species, it is necessary to capture several of its representatives in the wild and use them for population recovery. The selected animals will always be in the reserve or in the zoo, under the supervision of specialists. The problem is that reproduction under such conditions is difficult for several reasons:

The formation of couples is rarer, given the restrictions on the number of individuals. The number of mating seasons is considerably reduced to one or two a year, compared to the pattern of four or five in most species. Virtually any animal in captivity experiences psychological stress, which can disrupt female sexual cycles.

Therefore, some experts tend to believe that an attempt to artificially restore the population is a kind of animal torture, albeit an involuntary one.

Interestingly, the more people talk about saving an animal, the faster it dies. In particular, in cases where these individuals appear in advertising campaigns — even if these campaigns are precisely to save them. Sometimes even scientists don’t realize that these animals are on the brink of extinction. For example, it has been estimated that most people have seen many more lions on TV than the total number of lions in the world.

Let’s fantasize a little. If you were a scientist on whom the lives of entire species depended, what would you do? Tell your opinion in the comments section.