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.

To save or not to save?! That is the question…

Michelle Nijhuis does an exemplary job at depicting the urgency of endangered species through her articles,” Which Species Will Live?” as well as “Conservation Triage,” while analyzing the prejudice included in the choices that dictate which animals will survive through aspects of climate change, population growth, or use of natural resources, and which will perish forever in an abyss of extinction. Although making use of similar sources for both articles, which helped support several view points on the task at hand, each was written to appeal to particular readers. For example, the article “Conservation Triage” seemed to be more of a casually-embarked conversation for an audience that did not have as much in depth knowledge about the topic, yet still allows this sense of “togetherness” among the readers to know that everyone could affect the progression of a species with just our daily decisions. Initially, “triage” is a term common to battlefields as medics would have to make decisions as to whom they would care for first. In the same light, Nijhuis emphasizes the fact that such a method as emerged as one of the most common ways to decide which species to save- discussing particular attributes that make a species much more worthy to flourish with the aid of societies and organizations. Yet, at times, she adheres to the audience with diction that forces an instance of guilt and/or responsibility as opposed to implying the idea that only philanthropists and environmentalists made a difference in the situation. Nijhuis does so primarily in the excerpt-“The thing is, most of us are already making these choices, and making them all the time. Not that we think much about it. But every time we decided what to buy, where to build, or who to put in charges of spending our tax dollars, we’re indirectly deciding which species deserve our consideration and which species can do without it.” By appealing to the “pathos,” or emotions of the reader, the author ignites a connection between the public and the animals that suffer as a “necessary” sacrifice for human “needs.” Furthermore, it guides the reader toward the consideration of what they can do to make up for all the harm caused, as well as increases their interest in assuring themselves that their existence ceases to be malevolent in regards to the lives of others.

While including the role of the public, Nijhuis begins to discuss the “politics” as well as controversy between which methods have been suggested due to personal preference despite the emotions that affect one’s outlook on the grand scheme of choices. Some prefer to define the need for preservation solely on the effect a species has on its ecosystem, while others ideally seek out those that have the rarest gene pool and hopefully advance the process of evolution for the animals so that they can adapt to the world as it continues to change. Whichever path that is chosen, those that have been mentioned will leave quite a number of species out in the cold as finances have become finite in the world of environmental safety. With that in mind, the beneficiaries of projects that pertain to the safety of animals and ecosystems have to consider what they will receive in return for their collaborative efforts on the rescue missions. The alternative article,” Which Species Will Live?” puts more emphasis on this topic as Nijhuis incorporates a quote from Tim Male, vice president 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.’” As selfish as that may seem, it is the realistic truth that some animals we see roaming today will disappear simply as a result of the inability to pay for such projects. An inability caused by the lack of popularity a species acquires is a hard hitting fact that hits home every time. The effect this has on the human race as the care takers of the Earth instantly shows in Nijhuis’ other article, as she projects the way in which such a situation can evoke immediate sadness in one’s heart while making such life threatening decisions- a much more elaborate and detailed version of the previous excerpt. In the third paragraph, she writes, “as entire groups of species, including storm petrels, were deemed valuable but not valuable enough, a scientist would quietly shut down, shoulders slumped and eyes glazed. ’I’m just overwhelmed,’ he or she might say…” which immediately allows the reader to note that the people who make these choices are not cold and heartless, but do in fact care rather deeply and see this process as a must for the progress of rescuing the most important in spite of differences in personal opinions.

As a result of embarking on the discussion with this particular scenario, Nijhuis lures the reader with in-depth analysis of the main ideas to further elaborate on that which caused such a reaction from one of the participants in the meetings. She does so through realistically acknowledging the good as well as the bad of each scenario, no matter how good one’s intentions may be when conjuring up a plan for preservation. This reminds the reader that if inspired by said article to adhere to a plan that has flowered in one’s mind, one should be wary of the repercussions, the “what if’s?” and surely the “Is it too late?” scenarios. Such an example was seen within both articles as it regarded the “evolution – first approach which was geared toward giving animals a chance at adapting to the rapidly changing conditions of this world through protecting the species who possess the rarest traits. Though seen as a logical plan, Martha Groom, an ecologist at the University of Washington, pointed out the overlooked repercussions of such an idea and how threatening it could actually be despite the intentions of those who support this method. One of the main points Groom mentions discusses the entirety of an entire species being victimized because of the loop holes of this plan and thus worries about branches of the evolutionary tree being subject to extinction like so many have before us.