Should we be trying to save wildlife; whales, dolphins, etc...?

Question

seems to me that nature can take care of it's own without our interference.

Answer 1

I think the writer is making a statement about saving the animals that get lost in bays, or up rivers, and beached whales etc. These animals may indeed be sick and it may be nature's way of getting them away from the healthy ones. So I think indeed we should not risk the major populations by our concern for individual animals unless we know for sure they will bring no harm. We need to figure out if we are contributing (e.g. with sonar etc.) and stop such activities. We also should save the animals we can and move them to sanctuaries if we are not sure of the cause of their problems.

Answer 2

Our interference is precisely why nature cannot recover wildlife on its own. Through whaling, we have reduced the populations of wild cetaceans to near extinction, and by pollution, irresponsible fishing practices and overfishing of prime feeding grounds, we haven't helped them recover any. If humanity were to disappear for a few hundred years, sure, nature could probably recover some species, but in other cases, the damage has been done and humans have to step in to pull other species back from the brink. Look at the California condor -- by 1965, we had reduced their population through hunting and habitat destruction to 22 adult birds. Because lead and DDT were still present in the environment, the damage to this species would continue and they fully expected the species to become extinct without human intervention. After decades of research, the 22 birds they captured and bred in captivity have now become over 400 birds, about half of which have been re-released into the wild.

Extinction is the rule in nature, not the exception -- current estimates indicate that 70% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, some dying off to make way for others more adapted to the current environmental conditions -- but it doesn't mean that it's a good idea to hurry the process along through our actions. And when the balance is disrupted in nature, it has a ripple effect that impacts a lot of other species as well, so it's in our best interests to preserve what wild habitats and species diversity we can.

Answer 3

yes we should. If one species dies, a whole chain reaction happens. Like in the states somewhere a few decades back, they decided to kill off all the wolves so that they'd have more deer to hunt. And it worked! For about 5 years. The deer ate all the green plants in the area(it was a half dessert area) and soon there were no deer, or rabbits or any other type of green eating animals in that area cause they couldn't find food. So the plan backfired. Which is why we should save the whales/deer/other animals for their sake and for the sake of ecology!
So really we'd do better of we didn't butt in with nature, but since we already did and killed off alot of animals, we should at least try to repare the damage that we've done!

Answer 4

What a contemptuous statement! We are part of nature- we and nature are not mutually exclusive. But the natural environment is being destroyed because of human interference to begin with, so yes; we have a moral obligation to restore what we have damaged. Furthermore, as has been stated, every living thing depends on another, and that includes people. We like to think that we can survive without wildlife and plants, "Survival of the fittest,” but our existence depends on both. Additionally, oil spills, debris, pollution, runoff, litter; all causes destruction to habitats that causes death to each species within an ecosystem. The ocean is of particular concern, because the oceans produce 60% of Earth's oxygen. Consider the coral reefs; the reefs are dying- fish feed off the reefs- oceans, whales, dolphins feed off the fish- sharks feed off whales, dolphins, and the fish; we feed off of fish, sharks; but note the dependency of one another, it sustains the health of each species, and more importantly the health of the ocean, if it is destroyed, if the life that lives in it, is destroyed, then it can't produce the oxygen that land animals, including people, need to survive. This is only one example of people's interference of nature; but it is part of the many threats against the natural environment that exists.

And yes, nature could take care of itself, if its processes weren't interrupted or destroyed by inconsiderate, self-centered, and disrespectful people. Seems to me you need further education in environmental sciences. Look into it, do your research, educate yourself about these issues; it's alarming.

Answer 5

It's true that nature has ways of "taking care of itself," but it is our interference that is making things worse. One way of nature taking care of itself is when lemming populations get too high, many of the lemmings commit suicide by jumping off cliffs. Like many people have said before oil spills, deforestation, desertification, and things like that are destroying the environment and eventually this will come to bite us in the...buttock. Organisms all depend on one another as seen in food chains/webs.

Well sorry about all that rambling. Anyway, I suggest "The Story of B" by Daniel Quinn to you because it is somewhat related and it is just a good book.

Answer 6

I think we should be trying to save wildlife by not interfering with nature. But I also think we should be trying to save and take care of human beings. There is an awful lot of poverty and disease and violence out there that needs attention, so it is hard for me to get worked up about the extinction of a species of ant (for instance) when so many people are dying.

Answer 7

"seems to me that nature can take care of it's own without our interference. " Then you obviously haven't left the house lately. Or read a newspaper. Or watched discovery channel. Or attended school.

Answer 8

My point is that we really should help the nature with she's whole animals! why I say that? Well, because the nature is destroying it's self. So many animals are desappearing and so many bad things is happening... we should help the nature as well it help's us! Don't u think that? Why should we let the nature destroying it self, when we can help it persist...And when i said help, i meant HELP, not destroy, as many people does. That people, better stays away from the nature, cause they have no ideea what treasure we have! The life in Univers is unique, and our planet is VERRY UNIQUE...that's the real treasure! our Planet with she's unique nature!
Hope i didn't bored u...i really wanted to say my opinion! Nice Question, by the way!

Answer 9

"seems to me that nature can take care of it's own without our interference. "

what are you saying? many animals that are dying off today is from pollution, oil spills, nuclear waste, hunting, etc. if we leave mother nature to take care of everything, all the animals will end up going extinct >,> its up to everyone to help the animals survive

Answer 10

Yes,

The reason nature has a problem taking care of itself is Because of our interference: Oil spill, encroachment, pollution etc.