Should humans only save species which are at risk of extinction because of human activities?
Over a thousand species disappear every year. The number of species that are functionally extinct is also precipitously increasing. To many city dwellers who procure their food at supermarkets and give less than a second’s thought as to the origin of that food, the widespread extinction of species in not a concern. However, the disappearance of many species, however esoteric they may be, causes a disturbance in the global food chain which may eventually threaten the survival of our species. As such, it is imperative that we work to prevent any species from going extinct regardless of the immediate cause of its demise.
Primarily it is hard to gauge the reason for a species’ extinction. The deforestation of Brazilian rainforests is clearly adversely harming its fragile ecosystem and the disappearance of its indigenous species can quite easily be attributed to human activity. However, many species are only able to prosper in specific environmental conditions. Polar bears for example, depend on arctic seals for nutrition. However as the average global temperature increases from year to year, arctic seals have been migrating away from their natural habitat and as such threaten the extinction of Polar bears. The cause, however, for global warming is not uncontroversial. The landmark Paris accords have signalled an international consensus that the origin of global warming is found in human activities, however the recent withdrawal of the United States from the accords has signalled scepticism on the part of the world’s largest economy that this is so. As such it appears that any attribution of the extinction of polar bears to human activity will not be without its controversy.
Nevertheless, many reasonable people may argue that despite the adverse effects which humans may have on the global ecosystem, the resultant extinction of species should not be lamented. After all, even before human activities have begun to leave their print on the environment species have disappeared and come into existence more or less continuously. Surly we should not lament lions wiping up an entire species of Zebras. While this argument contains a significant fragment of truth, it fails to account for the fact that humans have long since withdrawn themselves from what is colloquially referred to as the “food chain”. Humans no longer hunt other animals for subsistence, rather, we have domesticated agriculture. This, alongside our near totally dominance of our planet’s resources imply that we are very susceptible to even the slightest changes in the environment. Consider, for example, bees, while being mostly an annoyance to humans, their main task is to pollinate the plants that feed chicken, cows and pigs, crucial sources of food for humans. As such, the current dwindling of bee populations poses a grave threat to domesticated livestock and consequently, our continued survival on this planet. It is not, as would be were we hunter-gathers, the case that we can simply switch to hunting another animal.
Recognizing our inherent disability to measure our “environmental footprint” and the pernicious effects of many species’ extinction, we must ensure that any species that can be saved, is saved.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-20 | Inbar Amit | 70 | view |
- Scientists and researchers should focus their attention on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest amount of people.
- The government should provide funding to the arts to ensure that they can flourish. 83
- People’s attitudes are determined more by the immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole. 66
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in a way no speaker ever could. 16
- Scientists and researchers should focus their attention on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest amount of people. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 414, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
..., depend on arctic seals for nutrition. However as the average global temperature incre...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 956, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...apos;s largest economy that this is so. As such it appears that any attribution of...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, well, while, after all, as to, for example, more or less
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2769.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 511.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41878669276 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15213711353 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545988258317 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 866.7 704.065955056 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.2669944789 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.391304348 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2173913043 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4347826087 5.21951772744 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21810221601 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0644504203177 0.0831039109588 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0562724607307 0.0758088955206 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12457633798 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0458055153487 0.0667264976115 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 161.0 100.480337079 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.