GreenPeace Wrote Me Back!

Dear Readers,

Remember that post where I wondered why we ought to worry about saving endangered species? Well, I emailed a copy of that whole post to Greenpeace, and I got this email back:

Dear Telemoonfa,

Thank you for your email. There is a crucial reason for protecting species from extinction which is an entirely selfish one. It is important to protect animals threatened by human activities because the loss of those animals can have dramatic effects on the ecosystem. As far as I'm aware we don't have another planet that supplies us with the resources that we need, so ignoring the impact of species loss on those environments puts human survival in jeopardy as well. I hope this has answered your question. For more information visit us at www.greenpeace.org.

For a green and peaceful future,
Zach

So Greenpeace's answer is basically "the loss of species can have dramatic effects on the ecosystem." But Zach doesn't say what exactly the dramatic effects are... I suppose I should try to look into that myself.

I'd like to find an example of when a species going extinct has actually hurt humans, or jeapordized the survival of the human race altogether. Can you think of an example, readers, or find one?

Now, I think I remember learning about the American buffalo going scarce back in the Manifest Destiny Western expansion days, and people went hungry... but that was an act of war... the cowboys vs. the Indians. Or maybe it was an act of genocide, however you want to talk about American History...

Anywho... humans have adapted, and the ecosystem has adapted, when species have gone extinct, and we're all fine now.

Hmmm... I think I might look into the issue more.

And this issue is important!

Because so many decisions are based on the assumption that trying to save endangered species from extinction is actually worthwhile. So much construction has been stalled, so many taxes have been collected, so much land has been snatched by governments, all based on the assumption that trying to save endangered animals from extinction is good.

But what if that assumption is wrong?

Greenpeace wants us all to get wrapped up in talking about how we can best save endangered species. They want us to keep talking about what species are in fact endangered, which species are threatened, which species are nearing semi-endangerment... They want to keep us talking about the subcategories of endangered animals and how we can help a particular endangered species from going extinct. They want us to have all these conversations based on the assumption that saving endangered animals from extinction is actually a worthwhile thing.

But what if that assumption is wrong?

It's the same thing with global warming. GreenPeace and Al Gore want us to keep talking about the best way to lower carbon emissions, how many polar bears you save by riding your bicycle, how much C02 is emitted when you boil a pot of water, how coal power and wind energy produce different effects on the Earth's climate, how obscure animals are affected by global warming, how particular lakes are affected by global warming, blah blah blah... They want you to have all these conversations and worry about all this stuff based on the assumption that anthropogenic global warming is actually real.

But that assumption is wrong!

It's like Greenpeace and Al Gore want us to keep talking and arguing about the branches of the tree, but we need to attack the root of the tree. The root of the tree is the assumption. Does that make sense?

Anyway, readers, especially ones with science backgrounds and enviornmental study backgrounds, please let me know about times when rare species going extinct have dramatically hurt humans. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Telemoonfa