The argument that I almost wholeheartedly agree with for preserving species is that individual species are part of a greater entity (the ecosystem.) By wiping out one particular species, humans may cause a much more drastic change in our environment. Throughout history, there have been many examples of how delicate a balance our planet's ecosystem is. This can be shown through invasive species – such as the water hyacinth in Lake Victoria – or through overpopulation through the killing of natural predators – such as the current deer population on Binghamton University's campus. With these examples, it becomes hard to follow Russow's case against this argument.
Throughout her response, Russow offers many examples that support her position, but seemingly ignores the ones that oppose it. Her point of view is skewed enough that she goes so far as to say that “it would seem wrong to wipe out the encephalitis-bearing mosquito.” Her criticism of this is that diseases have adapted to these organisms and as a result, adaptations have developed throughout the system that the mosquito exists in. She seemingly suggests that we should simply let nature and natural selection take its course. However, the example she fails to notice that it is human interaction that has caused this problem in the first place.
As human populations grow and expand, so do the space they inhabit and the resources they consume. Garbage dumps and wastelands become more common, and there is a proportional increase in the amount of pests. Standing water that collects in urban areas or refuse depots are prime breeding grounds for disease carrying mosquitoes. These mosquitoes are transported around by an increased rat population, also a result of an increased population. A similar process has been evident since medieval times, with the flea and the spread of the black plague. If it hadn't been for the original human involvement, the increased mosquito population and related rate of encephalitis infection would not pose the issue it does today.
Russow's argument falls flat because it fails to regard that humans are simply solving the problems they originally created. The example of killing mosquitoes cannot be used to define why we do not necessarily need to protect species. In the destruction of other species we are unbalancing an ecosystem; in the case of the mosquitoes we are trying to restore the balance we originally tampered with. There could be catastrophic results to following Russow's argument. If the mosquito population was left unchecked, there might be an epidemic of encephalitis that would lead to the destruction of several other species, including our own. From the perspective Russow provides, this would merely be nature taking its course, something that I find unacceptable.
While it is true an ecosystem generally balances out and keeps different populations in check, that is not the case in this anthropocentric world. Humans have the enormous power of manipulating the populations of various species including the mosquitoes in question. While humans gained this power by surpassing other species through natural selection, now that we are the most influential, she suggests manipulating natural selection. I also thought it was a good point when you mentioned that the she ignored the influence of humans on the scenario she created regarding mosquitoes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would be wrong to kill mosquitoes because they are a part of our ecosystem and also because there are some benefits to having them alive. As cruel as it sounds, it is a good thing that they harbor disease that control the human population. Like you said, humans have fostered the growth of diseases (especially in urban areas) and the more humans that inhabit this earth, the more likely it is that we will these diseases truly start to affect us, like the avian flu for example. We are so fearful that the bird flu will become a widespread pandemic and severely decrease the population of humans. While this is true, we should consider the benefits that come population controllers such as lessened risk of creating new diseases, less of a need to invade the territory of animals, and a lesser demand of the environment. All these things could help us sustain the human race in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI also believe in letting the natual environment of plants and animals run their course. The extinction of one animal (without human intervention like poaching) will mean the emergence of a new, more suitable specie that has adapted to live in this new world. We can't and shouldn't stop the change of the natural world.