Scarf in the wind Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Hello, can someone critique my Issue essay? Thank you. Prompt: "Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species." Instructions: "Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented." There are merits in stating humanity should expend all resources in ensuring every plant and animal is kept from the brink of extinction. However, the wording of the prompt makes supporting the speaker or writer's assertions indefensible. Though I wholeheartedly support ensuring animals are saved from extinction, a point to be discussed later, I do not believe we should do so irrespective to the cost and damage we would incur ourselves. Such costs include not allocating resources to disaster stricken populations, allocating resources to ensure early detection of natural disasters, the deterrence of nuclear proliferation. Rescuing all animals and plants from extinction, irrespective to humanity, is short sighted. Take, for instance, people who have experienced natural disasters? Should we not allocate resources to assist these individuals? Hurricane Sandy, the superstorm that leveled New York City, caused upwards of a billion dollars of damage. Many people were left without power, some were left without homes. Furthermore, the city was a major hub of economic activity. The billions of dollars worth of damage, coupled with the chilling of economic activity - from a freeze in wall street, to closures in department and groceries stores - meant the city was losing out on money they desperately needed to spur growth that would be needed to recoup the losses. The closure of Wall Street meant no global trading, affecting economic markets the world over. Were we to follow the recommendations outlined in the prompt, the people of New York City would be left to fend for themselves, in a somewhat eerie recreation of Escape From New York. With less hyperbole, allocating resources to save a poisonous plant in the rainforest instead of the city to spur growth would mean all countries the world over would take a hit in their wallets, and that would cause disastrous ripples in society. Speaking of natural disasters, allocating resources to ensure all dung beetles can live long lives, means we would be unable to expend resources on detection of natural disasters. For instance, states in the MidWest have come to expend resources on the early detection of tornados. After the economic damages, not to mention the lives lost due to an inability to properly warn citizens of impendind doom, the government has spent billions of dollars to better detect the formation of tornadoes to help protect citizens from being caught unware. Universities now have the ability to detect not only abnormal formation of clouds, scientifically proven precursor for tornados, but the measure the temperature of the clouds themselves, especially useful considering the mixture of cold and hot temperatures are integral in forming tornads. These technological advances has allowed us to minimize economic damage, but to protect human lives. Speaking of protecting human lives, there is one issue that must be addressed, and this is the threat of nuclear proliferation. The threat of nuclear proliferation has repercussions for mankind, the animal kingdom, and the verdant Earth. Rescuing a obscure, little known plant from extinction, and failing to halt the advancement of nuclear weapons would prove shortsighted. For the rescuing of an animal or plant may become moot and insignificant if it were obliterated by a nuclear weapon, and I do not feel that is hyperbole given the nature of our society today. As written in the introduction, I do support assisting in the rescuing of endangered animals. However, I feel one must do this through practicality rather than an idealistic sense of self righteousness. Some animals, I feel, may not deserve to be rescued. A plant that has no discernible use in assisting either mankind or the animal kingdom should be left to decay. Some may argue, but that is my position. However, an animal, such as wolves, should be rescued from extinction. One may argue that a wolf is a threat to humanity. Yes, to a degree. However, the benefits of saving such predatory animals outweighs the negatives of not doing so. The postives, of course, being the ability to control population growth in a natural manner. Animals who benefit mankind, in my humble opinion, should be rescued from extinction. In conclusion, I feel there are merits to saving animals and plants from permanent erasure. But the statement that we should do so regardless of the costs we as humanity would incure does not sit well with me. As oultined above, there are myriad reasons why we should not expend resources on damning ourselves to a hellish existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now