Different endings for different audience.

“Conservation Triage” and “Which Species Will Live”  have different conclusions which give the audience different feelings.Both of them refer to the ark. In “Which Species Will Live” , the author emphasize that “stuff the ark to the brim”.It’s about capacity.She suggests that saving species should work like medic.Even though we can not save all species due to many reasons, we should try our best to save all as possible as we can. What she shows to the audience is hope.  Her audience is science educated. Some of them might have power or be good at this area.She hopes that we should keep struggling  rather than  only  satisfying with conservation triage. In””Conservation Triage”, she states that the triage system prevents extinction.Even though it has limitation, and it is hard to make decisions, but it is still useful for the most.We have to make decisions and give up some of species.She emphasizes how hard  making  decisions is.  She ends the article with”Who gets to board your ark?”.  It is about subject. She leads readers to think this hard question. His audience is common people. In addition, she leads readers to put themselves on societies’ position , so we they can understand their difficulty.

Nijhuis’ Different Endings

Michelle’s Nijhui’s two articles “Which Species Will Live?” “Conservation Triage”, both discuss how conversationalists have turned to triage in dealing with which endangered species to save or not to save.  Both articles end on a different note, although in both endings,  she reaches out to her audience and calls them into critical thought.  In “Which Species Will Live”, she states “As climate change, population expansion and other global pressures on biodiversity continue, more and more species are likely to require heroic measures for survival (79)”.  While Conservation Triage can help mediate the problem,”societies will almost certainly have to consciously forgo some of the most expensive and least promising rescue efforts”.  She mentions that even with conservation triage, “the exhortation to save all species remains a worthy and perhaps even necessary goal.” She suggests stuffing “the ark to the brim”. I think she is subtly saying that Conservation Triage is not the solution of species endangerment.  In a hopeful tone, she tells us that although we know we can’t save them all, we should still aspire o save all animals.  On the other hand, “Conservation Triage” ends in a much more blunt and negative tone.  She presents to the reader the inevitable fate of all animals that in the end, “the patients lose”.  She ends by posing a question to her audience: “So perhaps it’s time to make your pick. Who gets to board your ark?”.

Noah principal

she mentions that the Noah principal is still the principal that’s relevant and important to conservation species . That points her writer the direction that she thinks is the future.She is trying to make people understand the difficulty of making the decision.She makes the audience to acknowledge the brutal reality and we should save as many as possible under the reality. instead of focus on the loss, we should focus on what we can save. The endings tries to plant hope into people’s mind, and give it a optimistic future that we can save more.  It’s  The Noah principal  more of a moral guidance. It’s the ideal that we hope to achieve, it is only in theory. However, it points us to the direction of where are going , it motivates us to move forward, and it points us to the future. Maybe, we can never achieve it, but we can get closer to it  through time.

 

Who gets to board your ark?

Through analyzing the conclusions of both articles provided by Michelle Nijhuis, emphasis is placed on the role of the human race’s existence in regards to the detriment as well as preservation of species and surrounding ecosystems. She implies the idea of the reader having an effect on the endangerment of species world wide simply through our daily actions within “Conservation Triage.” She emphasizes the general, yet major, affects triage has on not only people directly related to the decisions made as a result of preferences for certain  methods, but also how distinguishing between which animal or ecosystem could even cause voters and taxpayers to feel the weight of where their support lies. Utilizing a quote from John Nagle, Nijhuis suggests the usual reaction one would portray if faced with such a life – or – death situation and yet ignored it to further cause the latter of a species to occur. This allows the reader to truly be wary of their decisions when confronted with the last question of the article, “Who gets to board your ark?” as they  take into account the severity of the situation and the lives that may suffer as a result.

The alternative article “Which Species Will Live? ” includes a conclusion which discerns the utilization of triage as overall the wrong choice for the world and its resources despite its popularity. It acknowledges this topic more so in the light of political actions being done in hopes of relieving the stress of this method on species that are not deemed worthy of aid.  With the analogy of “Just as a battlefield medic works unstintingly to save lives, even while knowing that he or she cannot save them all, societies should still aspire to the Noah Principle—and stuff the ark to the brim.” in place,  she provokes the idea that although its not logical that every species will be saved, it is not the place of humans as care takers of Earth to decide which survives and which does not. Rather, it is the human race’s role to actually try and save as many species as it possibly can, instead of deliberately choosing to omit a few species off the preference list.

Conclusion of “Conservation Triage” and”What Species will live”

In the article conversation triage, Nijihuis summarizes that making decisions about which species worthy of being saved  is pretty hard before the end, and then says that people have to decide . This senses that he throws a dilemma for people to face. And he advocates the public to bravely face it and pick a choice. However, in the article what species will live, Nijihuis just clearly states the fact that every criteria has its own flaws. And in the last paragraph, he presents some scholars suggestions. Compared with these two conclusions, we can see that the ending of which species will live is more objective than conversation triage’s.

Nijhuis’ Conclusions

Michelle Nijhuis’ concludes her article “Which Species Will Live?” by explaining, through the use of a simile, that as a society, we need to make stronger efforts to save more species, not just let them die out because they don’t serve a role that is beneficial enough for mankind. She compares what society should be doing to a battlefield medic who “works unstintingly to save lives, even while knowing that he or she cannot save them all.” By using this simile, Nijhuis explains that people should attempt to save every species, even if in reality they can’t save them. Society needs to make an effort, rather than letting species die because in the moment they have no function.

In the conclusion of her article “Conservation Triage, ” Nijhuis hopes to show readers that we could have prevented extinction, but because society decided on the triage system, many were left alone to die out. She makes an emotional appeal by making the reader place him or her self in the position of many officials who decide which species will live with the ending line, “Who gets to board your ark?” After providing the reader with evidence and explanations of the various species that are endangered, and what government has done to either save them or watch them go, she lets the reader see how difficult the decisions that triage involves are.

Both of Nijhuis’ conclusions act as a way for her to show that society could have saved many species, but the importance of the species was not there and neither was the resources nor funding. So in attempts to act for the greater good of society, a triage system was created to save species that seemed more important. Nijhuis recognizes that all species hold equal importance and that in reality the Noah Principle should have been followed, but it is too late to reverse and instate that now, so society has to make efforts now, with the funding and resources we do have to make the difficult decisions that will save more species.

Why Can’t We Save Them All?

In Michelle Nijhuis’ “Conservation Triage” and “Where Will Species Live?”, the last two paragraphs of both articles reflect on the overlying problem of the whole idea of having to chose which animal species to save and not being able to save all of them. In “Conservation Triage”, she quotes Nagle saying “knowing that an extinction was  something we could have stopped and chose not to — I think that’s where people kind of gulp and don’t want to go down that road.” She then goes on to add that the whole point of the triage system is to solve that problem of making decisions on which species to save. Here, Nijhuis seems to be saying that the triage system is something necessary and that it is probably impossible to save every single species. She is implying that the decisions must be made even though there lies the guilt in making the decision to not save some species. So she ends the last paragraph by saying “So perhaps it’s time to mkae your pick. Who gets to board your ark?” to present to you the problems that the professionals face.

In “Where Will Species Live?”, Nijhuis targets the consciousness of people in making those decisions. She quotes Nagle saying that “the exhortation to save all species remains a worthy and perhaps even necessary, goal.” She throws in an analogy to compare a medic in the battlefield who is willing to attempt to save lives even though saving all lives is not likely to these people who are making the choices to suggest that they should attempt to rescue all the species.

What would you do if you were making these choices?

   In both articles, ” Conservation Triage” and ” Which species will live” by  Michelle Ninjhui, Ninjhui is telliing readers that there is still hope for these animals. She is saying that endangered species can still be saved by quoting Professor John Nagle in ” Conservative Triage” and mentioning Noah’s choice in ” Which species will live.” The purpose of this is to suggest to readers that solutions can be reached if people work together in aiding these animals. How can they do that? By limiting the amount of resources they use on their everyday lives because some of those resources are not really necessary.

   Ninjhui ended both essays in different ways. She ended ” Conservation Triage” by posing a question for readers to think about.” So perhaps it’s time to make your pick. Who gets to board your ark?” is asking the audience which animals they would choose to save if they were the ones making the decisions? This questions appeals to people’s emotions because most of them don’t want to face this decision making. It would make some people sad or perhaps angry since some of these poor  animals are endangered due to the choices humans make. The other article ” Which species will live” ends with an statement that makes people think about their choices that affect these animals. But Ninjhui is telling everyone that there is hope for these animals if everyone works together on preserving them.

Noah’s Arc Has Only So Much Space…

I believe hat Nijhuis wants the reader to consider two different perspectives in the conclusions of “Which Species Will Survive?” and “Conservation Triage.” In the article “Which Species Will Survive?,” Nijhuis concludes by stating “Just as a battlefield medic works unstintingly to save lives, even while knowing that he or she cannot save them all, societies should still aspire to the Noah Principle—and stuff the ark to the brim (Nijhuis, 79).” The author wants the reader to remember the morally correct mentality to have towards the life of different species- that conservationists and politicians should try their best to protect and save every species just as if they were human lives.

In the second article “Conservation Triage,” Nijhuis ends with the question: “Who gets to board your ark?” This is almost a total opposite perspective than the first article. Here, Nijhuis acknowledges that saving and protecting every species is the right thing to do however, it is unrealistic and there is not  enough money or resources to save them all. Human have to make a choice. Not every species can be saved, but some can. Nijhuis states “They force professionals—and, indirectly, voters and taxpayers—to make difficult, emotional decisions, but give them some reassurance that those decisions are for the greater good.” Nijhuis believes that the triage system is the best way to save as much species as possible and these difficult decisions are for the “greater good.”

 

The call to arms in a war against Extinction

Michelle Nijhuis, a popular author who discusses the methods behind animal conservation, provides a “call to arms” statement at the end of two of her drastically different, yet strikingly similar articles. In the two articles, Nijhuis describes the methods and the faults behind the methods of how scientist and politicians determine whether or not to save an endangered species. She highlights the ethical and economical concerns that overshadow the clearly obvious method of saving all of the species. Instead, she states that it is impossible to save them all, and choices will need to be made. So Nijhuis provides a call to arms to her readers, telling them that it’s time to take action, that it’s time to try and save them all, but also have the guts and the courage to stand up for the species you believe deserve to be saved, not just because a formula said to.