Introduction
As the world continues to grapple with environmental issues, the debate over the protection of wildlife versus the needs of human beings has become more contentious. Some argue that all aspects of the environment, including non-essential wildlife, must be protected for the sake of the planet’s overall health and resilience.
However, one can contend that human needs, such as clean air, water, and hospitable environments, should take priority over the preservation of wildlife. The arguments proposed are based on the Christian ethical principle of the sanctity of human life, which puts it as the highest priority over every other creature. Humans should only protect their essential needs, such as water, air, and temperature. In contrast, other animals and plants should not be protected since there are more pressing issues, such as hunger and inequality.
Background
The topic’s background is centered around the ongoing debate between protecting wildlife and meeting the needs of human beings as the world continues to struggle with environmental issues. While some believe that every part of the environment, including non-essential wildlife, should be safeguarded to maintain the planet’s overall health and resilience, others argue that human necessities—such as access to clean air, water, and livable spaces—should take precedence over wildlife conservation. (Betts et al., 2017).
It is important to highlight the critical role of prioritization in fostering a fairer and more sustainable world that supports both human well-being and environmental health. However, the core argument is that excessive attention is given to wildlife conservation while insufficient focus is placed on addressing human needs, where human well-being, particularly that of children and the poor, should come first, even at the cost of non-essential wildlife.
Ethical Analysis
The principle of sanctity of human life is a fundamental Christian ethical principle that emphasizes the inherent value and dignity of human life. According to this principle, human life is sacred and should be protected and preserved from conception to natural death (Landrigan et al., 2019). This principle is rooted in the idea that humans are made in God’s image and are, therefore, endowed with intrinsic worth and value. As a result, any action that intentionally harms or devalues human life, such as abortion, euthanasia, or genocide, is morally wrong and goes against God’s will.
However, in the context of the given topic, the sanctity of human life principle places human life as the highest priority and values human life above that of animals. This principle asserts that human life is sacred and inviolable and that all human life should be protected and preserved (Landrigan et al., 2019). It does not mean that animals are not important, but rather that they are not considered to have the same moral status as humans. The concept of the sanctity of human life is based on the belief that human beings are created in the image of God and have inherent worth and value that is distinct from that of animals.
Evidence in Support of the Thesis: Making an Argument
The central position is that too much effort is focused on attempts to preserve wildlife, and not enough emphasis is put on human beings. Landrigan et al. (2019) found that “exposure to air pollution in early human development, especially exposure to fine particulate pollution, can be extremely deleterious to children’s health and development” (p. 2391). Landrigan et al. (2019) state that “children breathe more air, drink more water, and eat more food than adults each day on a per-kilogram body-weight basis and therefore have proportionately greater exposures to environmental pollutants” (p. 2391). Prioritization is critical, which is why ecosystems, plants, and animals should come second to human well-being, where everyone should have basic access to clean air, water, and a hospitable environment, even at the cost of wildlife.
Moreover, many measures to protect the non-essential environmental aspects come at the cost of human life, which goes against the principle of the sanctity of human life. Matsypura et al. (2018) state that “wildfires represent a real and continuing problem that can have a major impact on people, wildlife, and the environment” (p. 774). The authors suggest that “the intensity and severity of wildfires can be reduced through fuel management,” which can limit fuel prices and impose restrictions (Matsypura et al., 2018, p. 774). The prevention measures aim to protect both humans and wildlife with equal priority at the cost of the local population’s access to fuel.
In addition, wild animal and plant species regularly go extinct due to a range of reasons outside of human influence. Another study by Betts et al. (2017) indicates that almost 200 species will go extinct in the next 30 years. It is stated that “new large-scale conservation efforts to protect intact forests are necessary to slow deforestation rates and to avert a new wave of global extinctions” (Betts et al., 2017, p. 441). Thus, protecting the environment as a whole without putting humans first can be detrimental to people’s access to energy and be wasteful of resources trying to save non-essential wildlife, which could have helped the poor and hungry.
Common Ground: Validity of the Opposing View
It is important to acknowledge the validity of the opposing argument, as protecting wildlife and the environment is essential to the planet’s overall health. By preserving plant ecosystems and protecting against natural disasters, people can help mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect vulnerable species from extinction. One can agree that protecting wildlife and the environment is important, but it cannot come at the expense of human needs. While there may be disagreement over the exact balance between protecting wildlife and prioritizing human needs, people all agree that a sustainable future requires a thoughtful and measured approach.
Refutation of Opposing Arguments
Humans cannot save both animals and humans at the same time, which is why children and the poor must be a priority. Saving wildlife means limitations and restrictions for humans, and thus, the animals’ and plants’ survival must come after human well-being is secured and established. Some wild territorial animals, such as lions, require national park landmasses, which could be used as arable land instead to feed the hungry and the poor. Considering the statements provided, the argument is that prioritizing human needs over the protection of non-essential wildlife is critical for the well-being of the communities and the planet as a whole.
Conclusion
In conclusion, people can create a more equitable and sustainable world that benefits both people and the planet by prioritizing human needs. It should be noted that the ethical principle of the sanctity of human life mandates that humans are put first priority. Therefore, people should not virtue signal about saving wild animals or the environment while there are millions of children starving, hungry, and without a home.
References
Betts, M. G., Wolf, C., Ripple, W. J., Phalan, B., Millers, K. A., Duarte, A., Butchart, S. H. M., & Levi, T. (2017). Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature, 547, 441-444. Web.
Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Fisher, S., Suk, W. A., Sly, P., Chiles, T. C., & Bose-O’Reilly, S. (2019). Pollution and children’s health. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2389-2394. Web.
Mariani, M., Fletcher, M. S., Haberle, S., Chin, H., Zawadzki, A., & Jacobsen, G. (2019). Climate change reduces resilience to fire in subalpine rainforests. Global Change Biology, 25(6), 2030-2042. Web.
Matsypura, D., Prokopyev, O. A., & Zahar, A. (2018). Wildfire fuel management: Network-based models and optimization of prescribed burning. European Journal of Operational Research, 264, 774-796. Web.