In the article, “Which Species Will Live?” by Michelle Nijihuis, she explains in her article her thesis and the main point, which is, that as a society, we need to make stronger efforts to save more species and to not just let them die out just because they do not deserve a position that is valuable enough for this society. She compares also what society should be accomplishing to a battlefield medic who, “works unstintingly to save lives, even while knowing that he or she cannot save them all.” This was an attempt to discuss her point on how individuals should attempt to save species if, once again, they are not able to be saved or even helpless. Triage is a decision-making system when treatment in difficult situations when time is short.
…show more content…
Michelle tries to enlighten the reader about these issues happening but also tries to persuade the readers to become active in fixing this world-wide issue occurring. It is said from Tim Male, vice president of at Defenders of Wildlife: “Politically controversial species attract more funding, as do species in heavily studied places: ‘We live in a world of unconscious triage.” Most animals we see today will end up disappearing just because of the accomplishment of not being able to pay for certain developments. Since each method favors certain priorities, when the computer method became about, it made more sense due to all of these methods not working for all species. These methods were working and capable of doing its job, but did not work for every specie roaming the earth. The main importance of this article to make the reader comprehend the need to save both function first and evolution first species instead of just caring about which species will end o more economically beneficial. With this other method, which is called the “Hotspot approach” did just that. This method geared its approach and focus on saving all of the …show more content…
To decide which species to be saved is hard due to how every specifies plays a big role into their own ecosystems and their own living situations. It is upsetting to feel that people do only care about the species that are helping their own environment in an important way and who give the environment benefits then the ones who are helping their environment flow smoothly. The method of Function First chooses to decide what species will be saved due to the critical roles and situations in their ecosystems. This means though, that biodiversity will most probable occur in other zones who give a little bit to their own ecosystem. I believe all species have a right to live though. That’s like someone telling humans that if we do not do what we have to do for this environment in a good way, we do not deserve to be saved or be living. The other method that is mentioned in this is called the Evolution First. This method saves the species that have a genetic biodiversity. I feel that species, who are becoming extinct and are becoming smaller in their group size, are ok if they are chosen not to be saved due to the facts that are placed on them as a whole. To not save species, who do not harm or do anything to the environment in a bad way and who are actually growing in size is a horrific and cruel motion to
Michelle tries to enlighten the reader about these issues happening but also tries to persuade the readers to become active in fixing this world-wide issue occurring. It is said from Tim Male, vice president of at Defenders of Wildlife: “Politically controversial species attract more funding, as do species in heavily studied places: ‘We live in a world of unconscious triage.” Most animals we see today will end up disappearing just because of the accomplishment of not being able to pay for certain developments. Since each method favors certain priorities, when the computer method became about, it made more sense due to all of these methods not working for all species. These methods were working and capable of doing its job, but did not work for every specie roaming the earth. The main importance of this article to make the reader comprehend the need to save both function first and evolution first species instead of just caring about which species will end o more economically beneficial. With this other method, which is called the “Hotspot approach” did just that. This method geared its approach and focus on saving all of the …show more content…
To decide which species to be saved is hard due to how every specifies plays a big role into their own ecosystems and their own living situations. It is upsetting to feel that people do only care about the species that are helping their own environment in an important way and who give the environment benefits then the ones who are helping their environment flow smoothly. The method of Function First chooses to decide what species will be saved due to the critical roles and situations in their ecosystems. This means though, that biodiversity will most probable occur in other zones who give a little bit to their own ecosystem. I believe all species have a right to live though. That’s like someone telling humans that if we do not do what we have to do for this environment in a good way, we do not deserve to be saved or be living. The other method that is mentioned in this is called the Evolution First. This method saves the species that have a genetic biodiversity. I feel that species, who are becoming extinct and are becoming smaller in their group size, are ok if they are chosen not to be saved due to the facts that are placed on them as a whole. To not save species, who do not harm or do anything to the environment in a bad way and who are actually growing in size is a horrific and cruel motion to