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.
Man has always had a reliance on their environment to survive. This intimate interaction between Man and his environment has led to a sensitivity about how to preserve his environment. One aspect of particular concern, is the preservation of the animal kingdom. Over the years, many factors such as climate change, anthropogenic activities and so on, have led to the extinction of many species. This has led to the question, what should Man do? Many have suggested that the human race should only focus on repairing the effects of their actions on the animal kingdom, which means all other activities that might lead to the extinction of animal species is none of our business. To this prompt, I disagree. I have three points that are the fortress on which my position is built.
The Earth’s ecosystem since the beginning of its existence has always catered for the survival of the species habiting its environment. Carnivores have meat, herbivores have plants and plants have photosynthesis. This creates an order in the food chain, where every animal has everything it needs within its environment to survive and thrive. The right temperature, food, habitation and so on, has been designed to ensure the survival of each specie. However, Man is the only abnormally in this chain. The intelligence of Man that is absent in other animals has made it the sole propagator of imbalance in the ecosystem. For instance, factors such as climate variability which ordinarily is beyond the control any specie on earth, is being heavily influenced by Man’s activities. No animal other than Man, has built systems that can effectively affect the order of events on earth. Thus, saying Man should only focus on correcting his mistakes is ambiguous at best, as we cannot really define what effects our actions is causing on our environment. Many effects are unprecedented and foreign, which means we have never experienced them before. How then can we sufficiently grasp their causes? There are too many possibilities for the cause of these event, many of which are too complex to absolve Man of any participation in its cause. Therefore, saying Man should focus on repairing animal extinction only caused by his actions is not feasible and might even lead to Man not doing anything at all to rectify the situation. Blame shifting and unaccountability will govern these decisions.
Furthermore, the effects of animal extinction can be catastrophic to the existence of mankind. Why then should we ignore these events simply because we think we did not cause it? I believe that regardless of who is responsible for the cause of animal extinction, the possible effects on the human race should spur into action regardless. For instance, essential animal produce that are used in the production of certain drugs will no longer be available, this would mean that humans suffering from the ailment curable by this produce will be left to suffer or even worse, die. Carnivores that depend on this animal to survive will most likely be endangered as well, which means that not only one but possibly two or more animals will become unavailable to Man. This will cause scarcity of food choices available to different societies and might lead to famine. For instance, in riverine communities, their main food for consumption are sea foods for water bodies around them, if for some natural reason, fishes in these bodies start becoming extinct, the community will experience a heavy downturn of food availability which would lead to hyper-inflation and hunger. Many will die and many more will suffer the consequences. Therefore, it is not logical to ignore the extinction of animals simply because we are not the cause of it.
The position of many supporters of this policy is that how can we be sure that we can correct extinctions if they are not man-made? Since we have no idea about this, and we have limited resources at our disposal, expending such resources on frivolous activities will be ludicrous. We should focus all our resources on things we know we can solve since we are the ones who caused them. While I understand the limitation of resources in our quest to solve the extinction debacle, a counter argument is how sure are we that we can solve the problems we caused? Not all problems caused by man has been solved since their occurrence. For instance, Man caused the tearing of the ozone layer which eventually is causing climate change, despite the role Man has played in the events leading to climate change, he has not been able to revert it. All scientific expenditure bear the risk of futility. Ignoring what we did not cause does not guarantee a hundred per cent success rate. Therefore, we should tackle as many extinction challenges as possible regardless of their cause.
In conclusion, while this policy might be aimed at conserving the resources of Man and focusing on them on repairing our mistakes. It is not going to be an effective solution if the aim is to ameliorate the effects of animal extinction on the human race. Whether extinction is caused by anthropogenic activities or by natural order, it is still our responsibility to preserve our means of survival. Animal are pivotal to our survival, hence, we must do all within our power to contribute to the survival.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2023-10-02 | Alex Cheng | 54 | view |
2023-09-09 | graceeehgq | 66 | view |
2023-07-17 | soap | 50 | view |
2023-07-17 | M1randa | 50 | view |
2023-07-14 | s.sim | 50 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 50
- A recently issued twenty year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin a medicine used to treat headaches Al 68
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager One month ago all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one t 68
- Facts should not be trusted as they can be disproved in future 66
- Educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and sup 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1244, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this event' or 'these events'?
Suggestion: this event; these events
...too many possibilities for the cause of these event, many of which are too complex to absol...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1072, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... as possible regardless of their cause. In conclusion, while this policy might b...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, hence, however, if, really, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 42.0 19.5258426966 215% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 33.0 12.4196629213 266% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 11.3162921348 212% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 94.0 33.0505617978 284% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 117.0 58.6224719101 200% => OK
Nominalization: 42.0 12.9106741573 325% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4409.0 2235.4752809 197% => OK
No of words: 888.0 442.535393258 201% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96509009009 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.45887615279 4.55969084622 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81135735295 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 370.0 215.323595506 172% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.416666666667 0.4932671777 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1411.2 704.065955056 200% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 6.24550561798 256% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 44.0 20.2370786517 217% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5868152955 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.204545455 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1818181818 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.93181818182 5.21951772744 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 16.0 4.83258426966 331% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111699392975 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0296038671082 0.0831039109588 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0318005060869 0.0758088955206 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0746798585416 0.150359130593 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0226442877794 0.0667264976115 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 183.0 100.480337079 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.