What Are The Effects Of Species Conservation On Humans And Individual Animals

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

With regard to the ubiquitous prevalence of pain, suffering, and death in the course of evolution, Pecocke sees both positive and negative aspects of natural evil. The increase in complexity that led to the emergence of consciousness was actually the consequence of the competition among species for better survival in natural selection. In that vein, the increase of entropy contributed the diversification of living organisms in the interplay of chance and law.

In addition to providing the animal with shelter, and necessary supplies the natural parks can bring back a whole species from near extinction. In the passage “The Impact of Animal Protection” it directly states that keeping animals protected has proven to be beneficial and increase the population of endangered animals. Bringing animals back from near extinction can be a difficult task, however it is very beneficial. Animal protection is also used to help control animal population from getting out of control. These programs have brought back plenty of species such as black footed ferrets, California condors, red wolves, and golden lion tamarins. (Do Animals Lose in Zoos?) The community would never get to see these amazing creatures if these

Aldo Leopold is considered by many to be one of the leading founders of conservation biology. From a very young age, he had a heightened interest in the outdoors and later pursued a career in the U.S. Forest Service. In 1949, he published a book about conservation called, “A Sand County Almanac”. Contained within the book is one of his writings, “The Land Ethic”, an influential writing that was designed to inform and inspire others to do their part in conserving the earths remaining wilderness.

Throughout evolution, many species have come and gone. What causes a species to become extinct and what can the human race due to prevent it? Many species’ population decline has been linked to human causation. An endangered species is defined as “plant and animal species that are at risk for extinction” (Funk). Endangered species can be placed into two more specific categorizes. Threatened species are species at risk for endangerment, while endangered species are at risk for extinction. Despite the fact that many people believe extinction is a major issue, the Funk and Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia states that, “extinction is actually a normal process in the course of evolution” (Funk). Over time, numerous species have become extinct, usually as a result of climate changes, inability to adapt, or predation. Another major cause of endangerment is the human population. Pollution, global warming, and hunting is all causing a decline in the population of numerous species. While the encyclopedia is entirely fact based, many authors have worked to sensitize people to threatened species. For example, renowned author Sharon Begley, has written numerous articles to inform people of the importance of many species that are often overlooked.

Following the principles of the virtue rule, that being, “you should act as a fully virtuous person, acting in character, would act in the circumstances,” we are challenged to see this argument in a different light. In the ethical dilemma that surrounds the culling of invasive animals the pain and suffering of those animals would need to be taken deeply into consideration. Singer explores this in Practical Ethics, Cambridge, 1979, chap. 3 when he stats, “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering.(2)” In this quote Singer challenges the idea that we as self-aware humans have the right to selectively kill and therefore inflict pain on animals. Singer explains that all beings not just humans require their suffering to be “equally counted”. Following the teachings of Singer we need to consider the pain and suffering of the invasive species and weigh up if their suffering would lessen the suffering of the native species in the long run. Consequently, the same conclusion is found. Using Singer as a Virtuous figure and thus considering the overall

He doesn’t think it matters if either a human or an animal feels them. However, he would agree with my statement of the decision whether to save my sister or my dog. He’ll say that there is a moral difference between saving the life of a human rather than an animal. In our textbook, it also explains that he would say a hunter does not have the moral equivalent to that of a murderer. Singer also has the belief that different species of animals have different levels of feeling pleasure and pain. Therefore, a dog would not feel the same pleasure or pain as a bear would. If you were to ask him, he’d also say that the pain or pleasure felt by an animal has the equal amount of morality as what a human would feel. It does not matter who feels it; it is all felt. On that note, he believes that humans have a greater capacity to feel pleasure and a greater capacity to feel pain. Singer’s views can be misinterpreted. He believes in animal rights, but he doesn’t agree that an animal life and a human life are equal. That is not necessarily what he’s saying. He thinks that they both are important, but a human can and has a greater capability to feel pain and pleasure. For animals, he doesn’t mean that they don’t feel. He believes that they are equal, given that all pleasure and all

The efforts of conservation can have many purposes and can bring help to area’s that need help environmentally. They can also be organized by well paid government organizations or local groups funded by the community that they live in. Some examples of government groups are National Park Service, Natureserve, Bureau of land management, Ocean Conservancy, and Traffic along with many, many more. There might be a lot of government but there are many many more local groups that are documented, undocumented or even help but don't put a name with their cause.Even though both of these types of these conservation groups have the same goal and idea there is one big difference, and to be honest it’s a pretty big one. This difference in funding. Funding is also how big government groups help local efforts. A example of this is Nature Conversely Donating money and lending help to local groups to protect of a 100 million acres of land around the world. Large scale things can also complement little efforts by just helping around. All over the United States little and large groups work together to to clean the environment help plant trees and don’t cut them down and stuff and also clean roads( adopt a highway foundation or whatever it’s called ). This is an example of government conservation groups helping locals because most likely without the help of government groups local efforts would probably not get off the floor and be able to anything. This once again comes back to the big

The idea of the intelligent design, which is the main subject in all assigned articles, presents our world as a product of the action of a higher, superior Being. This religious and somewhat creative outlook on life differs from the general idea of evolution which states that life is all related and has ascended from a common ancestor. These articles present views that support the notion of the intelligent design and challenge the universally common theory of Darwin’s evolution.

In Peter Singer’s All Animals are Equal, he presents an argument for equal consideration for members of nonhuman species, otherwise known as animals. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s argument does not prove that animals are deserving of equal consideration because it contains a premise that is not obviously true. The premise I believe to be inadequately supported is the premise that there is no property that all human sentient creatures have that not all sentient creatures have that would explain why the interests of human sentient creatures ought to be given equal consideration even though it is not true that the interests of all sentient creatures ought to be given equal consideration.

‘’Species have value in themselves, a value neither conferred nor revocable, but springing from a species’ long evolutionary heritage and potential’’ (Soule 1985).

The rights view holds endangered species in an interesting regard. It gives an example in the article of a situation where we must choose the lesser of two evils; the more intelligent choice.There are only two animals left in a species that will become extinct if they die, and also one individual as part of a species that is not necessarily endangered. From there, we must choose whether or not to save the last two animals of their kind in a situation where they could not survive and reproduce the population, or save the individual who comes from a larger population, butt would certainly lead to an eventual extinction if we were to kill that one. The choice that the author makes is to save the individual from the larger group, as opposed to the duo from the smaller group. The reason why we must choose the individual is that it has a greater effect o a larger amount of beings. it held more significant value. This same rights view then goes on to discuss the topic of endangered animals. This rights view does not deny that there are a certain set of situations that justify the observing and furthermore conserving of an endangered species by humans. What it does deny is that “(1) the value of these animals is reducible to, or is interchangeable with, the aggregate satisfaction of human interests and that (2) the determination of how these animals should be treated, including whether they should be saved they have preference to more plentiful animals, is to be fixed by the

Planet Earth is the one and only home for humans, and it’s their natural duty to protect it and all of its inhabitants. For many people, the fate of animals is of little importance, especially when there are so many of their own species suffering throughout the world. However, only when one has respect for nature can he or she come to appreciate for his or herself. In the past few decades, some animals have progressively come closer and closer to extinction. When compared to demographics 30 years ago, less than 5% of tiger and rhino populations remain in the wild (Congressional). The main culprits for this abominable crime against nature are avaricious poachers who seek personal gain and profit. Poaching is the illegal killing of

In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are

Since the beginning of life itself, some species have lived and prospered while other species have gone extinct never to be seen again by mankind. Because of this, some would claim that extinction is natural and not significantly problematic to the world that we live in. Others, however, understand that due to climate change, habitat loss, and poaching, more and more species are becoming endangered which leads to a chain reaction that can be devastating to ecosystems. Species such as the Chinook salmon, gorillas, tropical sharks, and polar bears are all directly affected by climate change, species such as northern spotted owls, Sumatran tigers, and lemurs are greatly harmed due to habitat loss, and species such as the sea turtle, Javan rhinoceros, African elephant, and the Red-Fronted Macaw are all affected by poaching driving them all closer and closer to becoming extinct.