Please review my issue essay!

[GRE4]

When I took the GRE in the past, I earned both 4 and 4.5 on the essays. I am aiming for a 4.5 or higher this time. Thank you for reading!

 

"Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position."

 

In modern society, we are concerned with the conservation and management of a variety of species, from invasive weeds, to endangered fish and birds to large game mammals. Humans have a natural desire to observe, manipulate and generally control nature. From a naturalistic viewpoint, one may argue that humans themselves, while highly intelligent and capable of problem solving and reasoning above any other animals, are part of the natural world and, therefore, should not concern themselves with conserving species that are negatively affected by our actions. In the realm of Darwinian natural selection, it’s a live or die world where the better adapted species survive and the inferior species go extinct. However, because we are part of this natural system, and have foresight and the ability to problem solve, we should be concerned with the conservation of, not only, endangered species in decline at the hands of humans, but all species threatened with extinction.

 

If we, as the human race, only implement policy to protect species in decline due to human activities, we would be making the egregious mistake of overlooking the complexities of the ecosystem in which that species lives. California Condors, for example, are nearly extinct due to habitat and resource loss from human urbanization. In order to keep the remaining population alive in the wild, large carrion has to be brought in to Condor ranges to sustain the population. Because large mammals, including elk and deer, are nowhere near as abundant as they were in the pre-gold rush era of California, and Condors rely on dead animals for survival, supplied food is a necessity for species survival. However, because elk and deer, while fewer than 100 years ago, are not technically “endangered,” returning their populations to pre-settler levels may not be part of the management strategy of Condors. Their populations would increase, providing more food to Condors, if their habitat requirements were restored. But, because these species are not threatened, special attention to their recovery is not given. It is easy to see how the cascading effects of various species, both plant and animal, rely on one another for survival and, therefore, should all be given equal conservation concern.

 

In addition to the ecosystem considerations, it can also be argued that humans, with their higher reasoning, foresight and intellect capabilities, should try to protect and conserve all species simply because we can. Pleading ignorance to species decline is not an option. It is a moral obligation to go above and beyond natural selection and “survival of the fittest” by saving as many species from extinction as possible. Going back to the Condors, it is easy to see how incorporating the conservation and management of not just the Condors themselves, but the habitat in which they live and the resources on which they rely (i.e., Elk and deer populations) need also to be considered because we know, through intelligent observations and reasoning capabilities, that providing artificial food sources to a declining population is not a long-term survival strategy. Restoring overall ecosystem health is the only viable option for endangered species survival.

 

On the contrary, human beings are part of the natural world. We arrived at this very place in evolutionary history through natural selection, just like every other organism on this planet. If species go extinct because of our actions, is this not part of evolution? Are we responsible for saving every organism that is negatively affected by our mere existence simply because we can understand what is happening to their populations when they cannot? Perhaps their inability to recognize their own extinction is the very reason they should go extinct, and not be saved from being just another picture in a Zoology text book. However, this philosophical view, while potentially valid, fails to recognize that we rely on the management and conservation of certain species for our own survival.

 

Overall, humans have a strong moral and intellectual obligation to conserve, restore and protect as many species as possible. Granting protections to only those species that are in decline directly due to humans will ultimately have negative effects on ecosystems as a whole and be similar to fighting an uphill battle. Only when the entire ecosystem and the relationships between and among species within those ecosystems are considered equally can conservation of endangered species be truly successful.