Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species

有些人认为，社会应该拯救所有濒危的动植物，尽管花费人类的精力、时间和资金。也有人认为，社会没有必要拯救濒危物种，

特别是需要花费大量的资金和精力。

.可供参考老题库121. "At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species."

在过去不同的地质时期，许多的物种因为自然作用而非人类行为而灭绝。因此，人类社会为了挽救濒危物种而付出的巨大努力，尤其是以大量的资金和工作机会为代价，这样做是毫无道理的。

The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make "extraordinary" efforts—at the expense of money and jobs—to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.

1. There are three fundamental arguments for imposing on ourselves at least some responsibility to preserve endangered species, which are culpability, capability, and self-preservation.

2. On the other hand are two compelling arguments against placing a duty on humans to protect endangered species. The first is essentially the Darwinian argument that extinction results from the inexorable process of so-called "natural selection" in which stronger species survive while weaker ones do not.

3. Secondly, many animal extinctions are due to natural forces which are far beyond our ability. The more money and jobs it would cost to save a certain species, the lower priority we should place on doing so.

人类和自然--当务之急（资金、工作）和长远考虑（物种）

1． 在过去，确实学多生物灭绝了，是自然选择的结果，生物进化的自然过程。比如恐龙dinosaur，蕨类植物fern。

2． 但是现在，物种的灭绝与濒危和人类的活动有着直接的联系。Deforestation，湿地marshi的消失导致habitat的锐减，污染和人类的对其他动物的捕杀切断了食物链food chain，北美旅鸽曾有几十亿只，殖民者开发美州100多年，1914年9月这种鸟杀绝了。

3． 不管动物的灭绝是否是人类活动造成的，人类都拯救那些濒危的物种。生物多样性是地球生态环境的保障，所有的物种通过食物链相互联系，任何物种的灭绝都会产生一系列的影响。鲸类靠鱼类为生，如果鱼类由于污染和过度捕捞而大规模灭绝，那么鲸类的生产就收到威胁。如果人类赖以生存的物种都灭绝了，那么人类还如何生存？

4． 但是也要有度，一个国家的人类财力是有限的，不能一味的全用来保护濒危物种。保护濒危物种与社会的进步，经济的发展不应该对立。

.可供参考老题库242 "Societies should try to save every plant and animal species, regardless of the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being."政府应尽力挽救每一动植物，不管花费多少人力、时间和财力

There is no need to save every plant and animal species regardless of the human costs.

1. The history of natural evolution has witnessed the extinction of some plants and animals species, which did not result in any harm to the environment.

2. Of course, if scientists can more or less prove that the extinction of a certain plant or species will cause some disastrous chain effects, we should make every effort to save it.

3. The primary responsibility of humans is to try to maintain the environment at its natural state, and then let nature do the rest job.

人类和物种

1． 植物与动物对与生态环境的保护，十分重要。植物的光合作用提供了氧气与动物的食物提供了栖息地，动物为人类和其他物种提供了生存的必需。比如，磷虾krill为南极动物提供了食物，如果磷虾灭绝南极生物都会面临灭绝。热带雨林被破坏，影响地球的气候，影响人类的生存

2． 社会的资源是有限的，不能过分的进行保守的保护，人类也要生存。比如家具需要木材，砍伐树木。人类需要食物，捕捞海洋鱼类。他社会问题同样需要投入人力财力，比如失业，贫困，自然灾害

3． 更好的办法是开发利用与保护的平衡，既在可能的范围内保护动植物，也保障了人类自身的需要。比如可以一边砍伐树木一边植树造林。可以通过科学方法进行人工培养，不破坏野生种群，比如磷虾

范文：

What are the limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction? The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make "extraordinary" efforts--at the expense of money and jobs--to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.

As I see it, there are three fundamental arguments for imposing on ourselves at least some responsibility to preserve endangered species. The first has to do culpability. According to this argument, to the extent that endangerment is the result of anthropogenic events such as dear-cutting of forests or polluting of lakes and streams, we humans have a duty to take affirmative measures to protect the species whose survival we've placed in jeopardy.

The second argument has to do with capability. This argument disregards the extent to which we humans might have contributed to the endangerment of a species. Instead, the argument goes, if we are aware of the danger, know what steps are needed to prevent extinction, and can take those steps, then we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction. This argument would place a very high affirmative duty on humans to protect endangered species.

The third argument is an appeal to self-preservation. The animal kingdom is an intricate matrix of interdependent relationships, in which each species depends on many others for its survival. Severing certain relationships, such as that between a predator and its natural prey, can set into motion a series of extinctions that ultimately might endanger our own survival as a species. While this claim might sound far-fetched to some, environmental experts assure us that in the long run it is very real possibility.

On the other hand are two compelling arguments against placing a duty on humans to protect endangered species. The first is essentially the Darwinian argument that extinction results from the inexorable process of so-called "natural selection" in which stronger species survive while weaker ones do not. Moreover, we humans are not exempt from the process. Accordingly, if we see fit to eradicate other species in order to facilitate our survival, then so be it. We are only behaving as animal must, Darwin would no doubt assert.

The second argument, and the one that I find most compelling, is an appeal to logic over emotion. It is a scientific fact that thousands of animal species become extinct every year. Many such extinctions are due to natural forces, while others are due to anthropogenic factors. In any event, it is far beyond our ability to save them all. By what standard, then, should we decide which species are worth saving and which ones are not? In my observation, we tend to favor animals with human-like physical characteristics and behaviors. This preference is understandable; after all, dolphins are far more endearing than bugs. But there is no logical justification for such a standard. Accordingly, what makes more sense is to decide based on our own economic self-interest. In other words, the more money and jobs it would cost to save a certain species, the lower priority we should place on doing do.

In sum, the issue of endangered-species protection is a complex one, requiring subjective judgments about moral duty and the comparative value of various life forms. Thus, there are no easy or certain answers. Yet it is for this very reason I agree that economic self-interest should take precedence over vague notions about moral duty when it comes to saving endangered species. In the final analysis, at a point when it becomes critical for our own survival as a species to save certain others, then we humans will do so if we are fit – in accordance with Darwin's observed process of natural selection.

---

Orignal From: Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species