“In Riau Province alone, where the highest number of elephants on the island was recorded in the 1980s, the population decreased from 1,342 to 201 in 2007,” reports CNN’s Jenni Watts in her article about the endangerment of the Sumatran elephants. This was the second sentence in Jenni Watts’s article titled “The battle to save Sumatra’s elephants from extinction” and I could not believe these statistics. The population decreased eighty-five percent within a time period of less than thirty years. My immediate thought was, “what if the human race were to undergo a decrease in population that drastic?” If there are approximately 7.5 billion people on this plant and it decreased 85%, the population would be 1.1 billion. 

Discovering these calculations was unsettling because endangered animals suffer from the sole reason of human intrusion. If the roles were reversed, our species would only hope and pray that there would be a group of individuals doing something to increase our population and prevent permanent distinction. Within the depths of my research; learning more about elephants, what is doing to endanger their lives and what is being done to prevent that, I came across multiple groups who thought it was a waste of time and money to be attempting to save these animals that have no effect on our lives whatsoever. I came to the probing question “If we as a society think it is okay to encroach on another species lives to the extent of endangering their existence, then why don’t we, as a whole, feel obligated to help them regain their population?” In order for not only the Sumatran elephants but the endangered species community as a unit to begin their attempt in replenishing their numbers, they need the destruction of the species to stop and for the community of people helping them to grow and do more. 

On the island of Sumatra, located in Indonesia, live around 2500 Sumatran elephants. Within the rainforests are some of the world’s rarest animals (wwf.panda.org). A small portion of the elephants’ habitat is nationally protected, but the other area is left to the citizens of the nation and the elephants to share. This particular species of elephants has a smaller frame than the African elephants. They grow to be between seven and ten feet tall and weigh three to five tons. These animals can live to be around 60 years of age and can be distinguished from other subspecies by their round ears. In order for the Sumatran elephants to survive they must migrate during the monsoon season to the elevated side of the island in order to continue feeding on the vegetation that Sumatra provides (OneKind). 

Because each elephant eats up to 330 pounds of planets every day, the islands needs to be able to provide a copious amount of healthy greenery in order for the elephants to survive (OneKind). This fact plays a large role in how and why the elephants are critically endangered. In Jonathan Watts’s article featured on The Guardian, he states that the subspecies of the Sumatran elephant is expected to be extinct within the next decade due to deforestation and the lack of awareness throughout the Indonesian population. These elephants are currently living in unprotected areas where they come in contact with humans often. Not only is Indonesia losing the population of Sumatran elephants from deforestation, they are also losing their rainforests and endangering the habitats of many other species (Watts). He states “Deforestation is seen as the primary reason for the collapse in number in Indonesia, which until recently was seen alongside India and Sri Lanka as one of the last great refuges for elephants in Asia.” Most of the deforestation that Jonathan Watts refers to takes place in the Riau province, which is located in the center of the island and is known for its rainforests, is where the majority of the elephants live.

The habitats have been burned and turned into plantations for the farmers on the islands. The crops that are heavily produced to be exported in Sumatra include corn, rice and other vegetables as far as food. They are also known for growing rubber trees, tobacco plants and palm trees for their oil. The demand and monetary value for these products act as blinders to the farmers and government when it comes to the needs for the wildlife across the island (https://www.britannica.com/place/Sumatra). 

Another factor that has been greatly affecting the elephants’ population is included in Jenni Watts’s article and is described as “The villagers and farmers don’t kill them for food. They do it to keep their homes and crops safe. The grim result is the killing combined with shrinking elephant habitat contributes to an 85% population loss since the 1980s” (Watts). Because these elephants need a vast amount of land to roam and find food, and considering the amount of land farmers require to grow enough crops, there is not enough room for both. Knowing that humans have the overall advantage, they take the land which results in elephants invading and eating their crops. Farmers solve this problem by callously killing the elephants using poison (Watts). The deforestation is one of the main causes of the murdering of the elephants. After the elephants’ homes have been burned and converted into plantations, they have nowhere to go. This forces them to invade established areas of Sumatra and eats the crops that are being grown in the farmers’ fields instead of in the rainforest. 

Unfortunately, the elephants of Sumatra are not the only animals to be affected on this island. The forest fires encroach on the habitats of species like the orangutans and tigers. In Joe Cochrane’s article on the forest fires happening in Indonesia, he writes about the several aspects of the nation that are endangered including the economy, animals, vegetable and citizens. Many humans have been sickened from haze causes by the enormous smoke clouds. Veterinaries in the area were caring for sixteen infant orangutans at the time of what was said to be the word disaster to occur in Sumatra since the 1990s. The animals in caretaking were reported to have respiratory infections due to the haze. Due to the necessary migration, farmers have been killing the animals that are trespassing on their property and eating their crops. Not only are the animals dying because of the forest fires, but now their lives are being threatened by humans living in the area (Cochrane). 

The critical endangerment of this species has been a pressing issue for many decades now. Luckily, there have been many individuals who have been starting movements to help save not only the Sumatran elephants but many endangered species. On October 5, 2015, Erica Goode published an article in The New York Times writing about when she approached specialists across the nation and learned their views on the matter. Goode reports, “By the end of the century according to projections, as many as 10 billion humans will be competing with other species for available space. And changes in climate are already forcing species to move into new terrains.” Because professionals in this field have already reported that the space we are sharing right now with the wildlife is not enough for some species, it is hard to imagine what life will be like trying to coexist at the predicted population. 

People like Carrie Friese, author of Cloning Wildlife: Zoos, Captivity and the Future of Endangered Animals, have come up with others ways to save endangered species. In Friese’s book she writes is about the cloning of endangered animals. The introduction includes some of the controversies about animal cloning and how it can be as dangerous or immoral. She then includes a rebuttal piece on how it could help certain species start to regain their original population that they once had. It is at this part of the book where she begins her argument in support of cloning animals. Friese shows her passion for animals and protectiveness she has for them throughout her text. She writes, “Cloned animals are not objects here. … They are ‘figures’ in Haraway’s sense of the word, in that they embody ‘material-semiotic nodes or knots in which diverse bodies and meanings coshape one another” (Friese). Along with this belief toward animals, she puts forth this passion in research, “in direct contradiction to public enthusiasm surrounding endangered animal cloning, many people in zoos have been rather ambivalent about such technological developments” (Friese). Friese then goes into further detail about what takes place in the cloning process and how it becomes possible to replenish species’ population. 

On the other hand of this pressing issues, there are some individuals that disagree with the efforts being put forth to try and save these endangered animals. On July 14, 2015, Michael Marshall’s article “What is the point of saving endangered species?” was published on BBC.com. At first I was surprised why anyone would ever not want to help other animals, but then after reading Marshall presents arguable points throughout his text I was considerate of the points he made. Michael Marshall questions why our society feels the need to feel obligated about the depreciation of endangered species. He presents the argument that because their presence does not affect us then what makes them so valuable. Marshall states that money we are raising to prevent animals from going extinct could prevent some humans from going hungry or homeless. He lists several animals that our society would be better off with because they bring harm and terror to humans, like wolves and tigers. Lastly, he states that extinction is part of the natural process and gives the dinosaurs as an example. Marshall writes, “it will be sad if there aren't any more cute pandas on the planet, but it's not like we depend on them. Besides, surely it's more important to take care of humans – who, let's face it, have their own problems to worry about – than to spend millions of dollars preserving animals. What, in short, is the point of conservation?” (Marshall). He also mentions that if the world were to preserve threatened land animals alone, it would cost an estimated $76 billion a year and then includes that if we attempt to save marine species separately it would be well over the original cost. After evaluating how much it would cost to save them he then goes over which animals should and should not be saved, “It can be particularly hard to understand why anyone would want to preserve animals like wolves, which pose a threat both to people and livestock. Surely there are some species we would be better off without.” 

In Scientific American, an article was published in rebuttal to Marshall’s argument by saying that animals have “no practical use given our current state of knowledge.” This article points out that each species in the ecosystem has a heavy role to play as far as wildlife and its natural procedures for living. For us as an advance group to put these endangered species into such low populations and then not do anything about it to save them is considerably close to murder or mass execution. 

After learning about the Sumatran elephant and the other animals that are affected by extinction I have been more cautious in my everyday life. It is an overwhelming ideal to think that in one century a population is plentiful and in the next it trying to avoid complete and permanent extinction. I think what these individuals are doing in hopes to save the animals is a good way repay what our society has done to them in the first place. In order for not only the Sumatran elephants but the endangered species community as a unit to begin their attempt in replenishing their numbers, they need the destruction of the species to stop and for the group of people helping them to grow and do more. Over the past decade this issue is becoming more prominent in our everyday lives and it becomes harder and harder to escape the facts. If we were to sit back and not do anything, this phenomenon that is in need of our help will start to become more and more lackadaisical in our minds. Each source presents eye opening information that the general public is unaware of. It was very easy to come across this information after initializing the search for it however, this could not be the case for others. I think it is important for our generation to keep fighting for this cause that way the generations to follow can appreciate and enjoy the things that we once took for granted. Overall, with the advances in today’s technology, similar to cloning, it will be challenging but possible to save the endangered species.  
