Polar Bear Arguments

1016 Words5 Pages
The Ursus Maritimus, otherwise known as the polar bear, has walked this planet with their massive webbed paws for hundreds of years. They have sustained many different difficulties in life but the most recent issue, global warming, is one that these animals just might not overcome on their own. The polar bear’s population is rapidly dwindling and scientists discuss why exactly we should save these giant white sea bears. There are two different sides to this argument. One side is referred to as the Naturalists. These people believe we need to let nature take its course. They believe we should not interfere, and instead let the animals and the ecosystem work on its own. On the other hand, the Anti-Naturalists believe we must step in and help preserve the polar bear population. They believe that we cannot let the Ursus Maritimus die out for a various array of reasons. The first reason for saving the polar bears given by the Anti-Naturalists is the effect on the food chain. In the artic, the polar bear is one of the few creatures at the very top, it is a keystone species. Polar bear’s diets consist mainly of one specific marine mammal, the seal. Without the polar bear the entire population of the seal would rise significantly. With no predators to lower the population there would be a skyrocket amount of growth and a very small amount of death. This means that the diet of the seal, which mainly consists of small fish and plankton, would also be affected negatively. A large
Open Document