3831 Shares

Do environmentalists take action if a species NATURALLY goes extinct?

Do environmentalists take action if a species NATURALLY goes extinct? Topic: My business plan project example
June 17, 2019 / By Issy
Question: I haven't studied any of this, so I don't have any examples of where this may apply. But I often hear about environmentalists taking stands against businesses and building projects on behalf of endangered animals and plants that live where they're planning on building. BUT, what if the animal was going to go extinct anyway...naturally? For example, let's say a species of squirrel or chipmunk was already endangered because they were prey for the increasing number of mountain lions in the area. Would the environmentalists want us to take action against the Mountain Lions to save the squirrel or chipmunk? They were endangered and going to go extinct anyway...on nature's own word! And on that note, would the environmentalists have a problem with taking a chunk of land there and cutting down the "squirrel's" trees for a building project? Again...they were endangered and going to go extinct anyway? Or would they insist on the builders waiting until the extinction was actually complete?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Do environmentalists take action if a species NATURALLY goes extinct?

Elizabeth Elizabeth | 2 days ago
One of the few examples is the Desert Pupfish. In this case the species IS protected, but only because the Endangered Species Act (which is imperfect) allows species with naturally low populations to be protected. In your example, the action taken would depend on the reason why the mountain lion population was increasing. Just because something is going extinct because of another animal doesn't mean the extinction is by any means natural. On your final note, the "squirrel's trees" aren't there solely for the squirrels. Trees, as well as all wildlife, the air, and the water are public commons that belong to all the people of the United States. They serve FAR more functions than as squirrel houses. In the event that the only reason the trees were standing was protection because of utilization by the squirrels, then yes, they could be cut down. According to current law, the extinction would have to be complete, but in reality the intrinsic ecological functionality of the trees would likely win out, seeing as most trees serve more functions to more species than just endangered squirrels in an extinction vortex.
👍 192 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? Do environmentalists take action if a species NATURALLY goes extinct? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: My business plan project example


Elizabeth Originally Answered: Do environmentalists take action if a species NATURALLY goes extinct?
One of the few examples is the Desert Pupfish. In this case the species IS protected, but only because the Endangered Species Act (which is imperfect) allows species with naturally low populations to be protected. In your example, the action taken would depend on the reason why the mountain lion population was increasing. Just because something is going extinct because of another animal doesn't mean the extinction is by any means natural. On your final note, the "squirrel's trees" aren't there solely for the squirrels. Trees, as well as all wildlife, the air, and the water are public commons that belong to all the people of the United States. They serve FAR more functions than as squirrel houses. In the event that the only reason the trees were standing was protection because of utilization by the squirrels, then yes, they could be cut down. According to current law, the extinction would have to be complete, but in reality the intrinsic ecological functionality of the trees would likely win out, seeing as most trees serve more functions to more species than just endangered squirrels in an extinction vortex.

Chris Chris
"He prayeth best, who loveth best All things both great and small; For the dear God who loveth us, He made and loveth all." - Coleridge Questions about environmentalists, nature and animals always stir up within me the story of the Ancient Mariner. The answer to your question is yes. Not only is it in the best interest to protect but also to preserve life. Therefore, if the mountain lions are killing off the chipmunks then it would be in the best interest to help the chipmunks live and multiply. In regards to your note, environmentalist would have a problem with anyone taking a chunk of land and cutting down trees for a building project regardless. Now that you know, tomorrow wakes the next morning "a sadder and a wiser man". (or woman)
👍 80 | 👎 -6

Aubrie Aubrie
It depends how you see it. From the way I see it, they do really take action if a species is going to be extinct. For example, there's lesser ice in both Poles so there's a risk that Polar bear population may decline. What they do is, inform people esp try to use less energy. Because the thing is, when one species gone it affects the other species and the environment and eventually affects us.
👍 79 | 👎 -14

Abaigeal Abaigeal
the belief of sensible layout is often misinterpreted. It skill, distinctly, that some or all of nature isn't the effect of random or easy forces. greater often that's taken as a synonym for divine creation, yet this is a mistake. Your questions are concerns of evolution, not of sensible layout. traditionally the arguments for sensible layout have been rather skinny. Unexplained phenomena are actually not applicants for id; in easy terms unexplained complexity is. Phenomena could desire to be studied exhaustively adequate that we are able to perceive the point of complexity as quickly as we get right down to the fundamentals. merely at present have some phenomena, such as a results of fact the mandatory DNA for the main rudimentary life, been broken right down to the factor the place we are able to assert there is not any regular organic rationalization for the life of the mandatory genes. That makes id the terrific rationalization we've at present for the phenomenon of uncomplicated life.
👍 78 | 👎 -22

Abaigeal Originally Answered: Why hasn't the human race evolved to a better species?
Your question contains the classical mistake given to evolution that it is progressive... it is NOT progressive. Evolution is based on variance within the population allowing adaptation to fill new environmental niche. Fortunately for humans we are the most generalized mammal on the planet and as of such have found a nearly universal sucess throughout most of the environments that we encounter. That said it is difficult to imagine an environment that would be different enough and that we would habituate for long enough to allow natural selection to act upon the effected population for long enough to create any kind of significant visual change in our species. At the same time we as a species are truly defeating the few acts of natural selection that were acting upon us with advances in medicine. With this in mind the changes that might occur could be much like your thanksgiving Turkey, a creature who has been put under so much unnatural selection that it no longer is capable of mating due to humans artificially breeding them for nothing else but size. If humans were no longer present to do this service for Turkeys, they would go extinct. Through "unnatural selection" humans are doing very similiar things to themselves. Undoubtedly a woman who goes in for infertility medicines has a greater chance of having children who would require the same, children that have severe enough allergies/asthma that may have killed them in the past will now grow to a reproductive age with the assistance of asthma/allergy medicines will also produce offspring who have higher occurances of asthma/allergies. This is a bit of a concern, seeing as at the same time we are making ourselves more susceptible to asthma and allergies we are also taking actions that are converting the environment that we will have to adapt to, to containing more contaminants. If it gets serious enough those who are persevering with the assistance of medicine may be the first to become too sick to be reproductively successful such that the power of natural selection might overbear unnatural medical selection once again in this area? Some areas where medicine is making slow progress, like cancer and Aids, there will be a continued evolutionary process. Already there have been a few case studies that have shown a truckstop in Africa where the prostitutes, despite an alarming exposure rate, are not catching or dying from Aids suggesting that natural selection has already discovered a variant within one ethnic group that appears to have white blood cells which are not as susceptible to the AIDS virus, much like sickle cell trait does the same red blood cells resistance for Malaria. As this gene now becomes more prominent due to the pressure of AIDS we may also see the advance of a new genetic disorder if a person is born with two recessives, much like two recessive copies of sickle cell results in anemia instead of trait. So if people do begin to die from a worse environment that causes worse Asthma/Cancer/AIDS, undoubtedly natural selection will find many variants within our population which now far exceeds 6 billion people and will come up with the needed solutions to combat these problems so that enough people make it to a reproductive age and then go to the doctor to get their fertility drugs. If there is also enough disruption in the sociopolitical structure such that medicine is no longer readilly available, at least to the poor, then natural selection will also reclaim the realm of fertility and those who can't naturally, won't. So that is what our environment has in store for us... But what about technology, if it is allowed to persist and becomes an enpowered agent towards our development. If on top of the fertility drugs, people take medical-engineering so far that they also have their fetus' genetically altered to bring out the "preferred" characteristics. Well it sounds great on the surface, this is actually a dangerous game of Russian roulette. First of all, if the procedure becomes too widespread we would in essence be eradicating variability within our gene pool. It is this same variance which is the mobilizer of natural selection that gives us our ability to adapt to new environments. Now lets say a bacteria or virus evolves to exploit a now homogenous niche that our scientists have now placed in EVERYONE. Not a single person will have the variance to counteract that virus/bacteria... whoops. Secondly, if genetic altering is only a thing for the rich, then we might find that if two genetically altered children were to fall from the economic status of their parents that either they could not have children at all as they have so many recessives combining inutero that the fetus is continually rejected, or if a new baby is conceived without the same genetic tinkering that the parents underwent, that the resulting child may have severe genetic defects, again by two recessives that matched up in the new baby for the fact that that recessive with a different dominant in both parents had allowed a benificial trait in their parents genetic engineering procedure. Simply put, genetic engineering may create a circumstance where it becomes a neccesary procedure for genetically engineered people to have healthy offspring and the Human race would be up the creek without a paddle if we somehow lost the ability to continue the procedure, once started. So what are we evolving into... What environment are we heading towards and how will our biology enpowered by natural selection and our sociopolitical and medical progress, which cheat the processes of natural selection, shape our evolution, our sucess within this new environment? This is the question. The answer is

If you have your own answer to the question my business plan project example, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.