Sample polling of animal populations suggests that Earth may be or may have already entered into a sixth wave of extinction. The only difference is that the cause of this sixth wave is not asteroids or volcanic eruptions: it is us. There have already been five major waves of extinction in our planet’s lifetime. In Bryan Walsh’s article, “The New Age of Extinction,” he describes that conservationists estimate that extinctions worldwide are occurring at a rate that is up to 1,000 times as great as before humans proliferated the planet. Madagascar, an African country, is one of the most diverse and ecologically threatened regions on our planet. Madagascar has seen more than 80% of its original vegetation cut down or burned, fragmenting habitats and leaving animals effectively homeless (Walsh). Why is this important? The impact of losing species can not only effect the environment and ecosystems, but also human society. The more species present within an environment, the more diverse it can be biologically. The benefits that species offer to humans is monumental and often overlooked. If any change is to be made regarding the protection of endangered species, it will be made by us. Our recent change in president and increased awareness of environmental degradation may push our society to pass legislation which could save many of the vital species on Earth. Working to protect endangered species in African territories will benefit human society by raising revenue, preserving mutualistic relationships, and maintaining biodiversity within the service providing environment. This positive effect on society could ultimately be used to initiate a call to action to improve conservation legislation for the benefit of not only species, but also humans.

Working to protect endangered species has increasingly brought opportunities for countries to raise revenue and increase the quality of life of their citizens. A developing practice known as ecotourism is one opportunity responsible for increasing incentive to protect species. Ecotourism allows travelers to experience the natural beauty of various ecosystems in a way that does not damage the environment. Professor of Biological Sciences and author, Craig Stanford, writes about the benefits of ecotourism in his book Planet Without Apes. Stanford states that in just one morning in Bwindi, Uganda, tourism of endangered mountain gorillas can bring in more than ten thousand dollars to the country (164). In 2009, gorilla tourism was among the leading sources of revenue for the nation of Uganda (Stanford 164). One may ask how this revenue benefits the endangered species. The reasoning behind this system is that the funds brought into the country and the jobs created for locals are intended to compensate for not destroying the habitat of the species or directly exploiting them. Scott Norris expands on this idea in his article “Madagascar Defiant,” which describes the development of ecotourism in Madagascar by its president Marc Ravalomanana. Ravalomanana believes that development in a country and conservation go hand in hand. Norris relays the idea that “ecotourism will work when the money directly benefits the local communities,” and for this reason, may offer the greatest promise of biodiversity protection (964). Not only does protecting, tracking, and touring the subject species creates jobs for locals, but the revenue towards the country can be put towards building schools and health centers. Because of these benefits, countries may take a closer look at their efforts to further protect endangered species in a mutually beneficial way.

Some opponents of conservation programs say that the cost of funding these programs is too high. In the article, “Spending on the Endangered Species Act: Too Much or Not Enough,” the author, Beth Baker, evaluates the cost and sentiment of protecting species. Baker quotes Representative Don Young, chair of the House Resources Committee, who states that the cost funding for endangered species protection has increased by almost 800 percent in the last decade. Some believe that this increase in spending is unnecessary because of the results the countries have to show for it. Chief counsel to the House Resources Committee, Elizabeth Megginson, claimed that “‘we’ve spent nearly $2 billion on salmon recovery and have very little to show for it’” (as qtd. in Baker). While the expenditure cost of protecting species may seem high, the profit that species’ ecosystem services provide is much higher. Some of these services are as simple as pollinating insects allowing human crop plants to survive and reproduce through seed dispersal. Ecologist Robert Costanza and his colleagues estimated that the services provided by the biosphere are worth about 33 trillion dollars a year (Marshall). Constanza and his team also concluded that the benefits of conserving biodiversity would outweigh the costs by a factor of 100. People can argue against spending a country’s budget money on an area which shows little reward; however, by putting a value on ecosystems, it is clear that the relationships between species and humans are much more profitable than one might assume. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that unchecked species loss would eliminate 18 percent of global economic output by the year 2050 (Marshall). Based on these statistics and the ones mentioned earlier, it would be in the best interest of economies to put forth an effort to conserve species so that their profitable services are not lost with their existence. In turn, if the economy is profitable, individuals, families, and businesses will have the ability to thrive.

What many people do not understand is that protecting endangered species is not only beneficial to their existence, but also equally beneficial to the humans’ existence. Humans participate in mutualistic relationships with a wide variety of species. A mutualistic relationship is a type of symbiosis where organisms of different species work together, so that both species profit from the relationship. In Simon Worrall’s National Geographic interview with author and anthropologist, Thom Van Dooren, Van Dooren describes that humans think of themselves as the “Lords of Creation.” Humans have a long history of thinking that they are the sole bearers of rationality and the ability to think and manipulate the world. Rather than seeing ourselves as animals, humans have the tendency to see themselves as a supreme being, and for this reason, overlook the benefits that other species provide. Van Dooren uses the Gyps vultures in India as an examples of how a species’ absence could negatively affect human society. Vultures are scavengers, and in India “clean up to five to ten million camel, cow, and buffalo carcasses a year” (Worrall). Within the past few decades, 97 to 99 percent of the birds have gone, which may lead to rises in the numbers of scavengers and incidences of diseases like rabies and anthrax in India (Worrall). The claims that Van Dooren makes are also backed up by Rosa Agudo and her colleagues in their study “Reinventing Mutualism Between Humans and Wild Fauna: Insights from Vultures as Ecosystem Service Providers.” The authors’ study revolves around the relationship between humans and one of the most threatened vulture species: the Egyptian vulture. According to the study’s data, between 17 and 22 percent of the putrescible waste produced on the island Socotra, off the coast of Africa, is eliminated by vultures (Agudo et al. 176). Without the existence of the vultures, communities would be plagued with rotting carcasses strewn in the streets. Waste control is not the only service that species can provide. Regulating and supporting services such as pollination, pest control, and recycling nutrients into soil are also benefits that people can obtain from ecosystems. If many of the species that perform these activities disappear from extinction, human society will need to find new methods to replace them. 

Maintaining the biodiversity of an ecosystem is a key factor in stabilizing not only that specific ecosystem but also maximizing its resource output to humans. First off, the effects of losing biodiversity must be discussed as it is related to species living in coherence. The variety and variability of life on Earth within and between species is a basic description of biodiversity. According to the TIME magazine article, “The New Age of Extinction,” written by Bryan Walsh, as the number of species living in an ecosystem increases, the healthier and more productive it is. The loss of just one species in which others depend on could send the balance of the community into a spiraling downfall. What is important to recognize is that humans are animals too and are dependent on the biodiversity of ecosystems just like any other life form. For example, there are so many undiscovered organisms and animals that could serve as the sources for needed medicines (Walsh). If humans do not protect those organisms that may directly relate to the survival of those keystone species, society could miss out on the opportunity of great medicinal discoveries. Similarly, in Michael Marshall’s article, “What is the Point of Saving Endangered Species?,” Marshall states that ecologists have found evidence that a wider range of species lead to a more stable and resilient ecosystem. Every part of an ecosystem is important—even the smallest of organisms. For example, a tiny, obscure worm may not be directly benefiting humans; however, it is supporting the environment in which it lives: an environment which provides the “ecosystem services” that humans depend on. Marshall argues that human society must ensure that ecosystems are as rich and diverse as possible because that which is good for them, is also good for us.

Despite the obvious benefits of having a diverse ecosystem, some opponents of this idea say that extinction is the natural order of life and that the loss of a species will actually benefit others. Josie Ensor and Richard Gray’s “Extinction is Not Always a Bad Thing, Say Scientists,” support this routine loss with the claim that extinction is not such a detrimental occurrence because it allows other species to flourish and biodiversity to increase. Ensor and Gray state the dissipation of dinosaurs as an example. Their mass extinction in the Mesozoic Era allowed mammals to gain an advantage and develop in the Cenozoic Era into many of the species we have on Earth today.  However, in “Causes and Consequences of Species Extinctions,” by Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Barry W. Brook, and Navjot S. Sodhi, the authors list five commonalities between the past five great extinctions. One of these commonalities is that the great extinctions caused a catastrophic loss of global biodiversity. A loss of biodiversity causes ecosystems to be less stable and more resistance to drastic change. Another point used by Ensor and Gray to back up their claim that extinction is not such a bad process, is that it allows niche expansion to occur. This gives other species an opportunity to thrive in a role previously occupied. The authors of “Causes and Consequences of Species Extinctions” agree that this phenomena has been observed, but between unrelated taxa: meaning not in the same species, family, or class. Many conservation biologists have focused predominantly on the independent decline or extinction of species. In turn, they have paid less attention to the cascading effects of coextinction (Bradshaw et al. 519). For example, frugivorous animals and fruiting plants are two interdependent species where the rapid decline of one would result in the decline of the other. Because many trees and plants depend on animals for dispersal of seeds, the demise of frugivores would have serious consequences for the tree and plant species’ reproduction (Bradshaw et al. 518). So, while extinctions among unrelated taxa may have less of an effect, interdependent species disruption can effect vital ecological processes. This will lead to a “snowball effect” of losses, ecosystem collapse, and a higher extinction rate overall. 

Conservation biologists have been concerned for decades about the fate of endangered species around the world. While extinction may be a natural process of life, species all over the globe seem to be depleting at an astounding rate. The elimination of a single species could cause major disrupt and is highly probable of happening because of the work that many local citizens must perform to make a living. Uncontrolled hunting has wiped out a number of large species, and today mining, logging and energy exploration threaten many of those that remain. However, what many people do not realize is that protecting endangered species can actually benefit countries and their inhabitants. By maintaining variety in the environment, there is opportunity to discover and implement advancements provided by species. Implementing systems of protection such as ecotourism can bring proceeds to governments, where the profits and job opportunities trickle down to the rest of the population. Being aware of the aid that many species bring to humans may stimulate our drive to protect them. Whether it be vultures providing a method of waste disposal or bees pollinating crops, a variety of organisms offer us services, which if eliminated, could cause havoc. The continent of Africa is a great example of how biologically diverse an area can be, but also a great example of how human society may threaten ecosystems. Looking at this country and seeing the impact of its indigenous species on humans could greatly effect decisions made by government officials in other countries. The recent change of presidents in the United States is striking event which may change the fate of species protection. Some say that the new president is bound to overlook the importance of funding conservation and wildlife groups as he focuses the country’s spending on commercial gains. However, studies show that protecting the environment and strengthening the economy are not mutually exclusive. Protection of public lands actually leads to economic growth. News headlines which outline the impending danger to species must serve as a reminder that humans have the choice to either help or harm the natural world. The detriments to humans due to the loss of species should drive political leaders to address conservation. As a society, we must prioritize saving each and every species before disaster strikes and opportunity is lost. This is our great moral responsibility.
