E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jessica Bryant / Zoological Society of London
The Hainan gibbon, a native of China's Hainan Island, was among the 100 most endangered species cited in a new report. Fewer than 50 of the apes are left.
Priceless or worthless? That's the question posed in a report released Tuesday that lists the 100 most endangered animals, plants and fungi around the globe, as chosen by 8,000 experts for the Zoological Society of London and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
The question was raised because the species closest to extinction don't have an obvious economic value to mankind and yet some, especially the experts, would argue for their protection.
"The donor community and conservation movement are leaning increasingly towards a 'what can nature do for us' approach, where species and wild habitats are valued and prioritized according to the services they provide for people," Jonathan Bailie, conservation director at the Zoological Society of London, said in a statement issued with the report.
"This has made it increasingly difficult for conservationists to protect the most threatened species on the planet," he added. "We have an important moral and ethical decision to make: Do these species have a right to survive or do we have a right to drive them to extinction?"
Craig Turner / Zoological Society of London
The pgymy three-toed sloth is native to an island off Panama. Fewer than 500 are thought to be left.
The species are native to 48 countries, but their names don't always shout out "Save me" -- among them the pygmy three-toed sloth (found only on an island off Panama and fewer than 500 are left); the Hainan gibbon (fewer than 20 are left on China's Hainan Island); and the willow blister (a fungi found in Wales).
The report doesn't estimate the cost of saving the 100 species, nor does it rank them, instead listing them alphabetically by their scientific name -- starting with Astrochelys yniphora, or ploughshare tortoise.
"Having narrowly survived hunting pressure and habitat destruction by fire in the past, this species’ good looks may be its ultimate downfall as illegal collection for the international pet trade is likely to push it to extinction in the wild in the near future," the report states.
The Japanese otter was declared extinct today by the Japanese government after not being spotted for over 30 years. NBCNews.com's Richard Lui reports.
Fewer than 770 ploughshare tortoise are thought to survive in the wild of their native Madagascar.
The experts noted that the 100 species chosen are just a fraction of the thousands of species that also face extinction, just perhaps not as soon.
"The future of many species is going to depend on reconciling the needs of people and nature, and ensuring economic development and conservation do not undermine each other," Simon Stuart, chair of the IUCN's species survival commission, said in a foreword to the report.
"If we ignore the question" about priceless or worthless, he added, "we shall be inadvertently accepting the ethical position that human-caused mass extinction is acceptable."
The World Wildlife Fund framed the issue slightly differently.
"Ideally, we would try and save every species on the planet because everything in nature is connected and so are the solutions to environmental problems," Sybille Klenzendorf, WWF's species conservation director, told NBC News. "However, since saving every single species would be an enormous undertaking, we must focus our efforts on conserving nature as a whole.
"For WWF, that means working on what we call umbrella species like tigers, elephants and rhinos," she added. "By focusing on conservation of those species, we’re also aiming to protect other species that share their habitat -- or are vulnerable to the same threats."
Cristian Samper, head of the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society, agreed on that approach.
"We won't be able to save every species, but if we are smart we can save many of them," Samper said. "We focus on places where you have many species and big threats."
"In extreme cases," Samper said, "we will save species in zoos and aquariums and then reintroduce them, like we did at the WCS Bronx Zoo with the American bison a hundred years ago and we are doing that now with turtles and frogs today."
Galapagos tortoise Lonesome George has died. The only remaining Pinta Island giant tortoise-believed to be the last of his species- was believed to be about 100 years old. ITV's Annabel Roberts reports.Â
More world stories from NBC News:
- Generation Y battles to shape Pakistan's future
- Agitator or hero? S. Africa's poor put faith in Malema
- 'Emergency red list' targets Syria's looted treasures
- Report: Coral in Caribbean, Fla. in sharp decline
- Militants: Terrorist designation adds to captured GI's 'woes'
- The Arab Spring is dead -- and Syria is writing its obituary
- Photographer returns to work after Afghanistan blast
- Smoking ban leaves Lebanese fuming
- Car crash politics: Laws don't touch rich in Thailand
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Strange, I don't see "my sex life" on the list.
Ha
It had to exist to be endangered.
RM Fields
Too funny!!
I hope we don't start judging humans by a "what can they do for us" approach. There's going to be a lot of people in trouble if so!
Dan...Do you believe in evolution?
Evolution & extinction are two different things. Especially true when extinction comes from the actions of humans.
Extinction from humans is different than extinction from other invasive animal species? How?
Because we are smart enough to know the damage it can cause, because we have technology to acknowledge we are moving a species towards extinction instead of just hunting it until they don't exist anymore and then panicking and wondering what happened.
I am not advocating that we just burn tires in our backyard, but a reasonable cost-benefit analysis would be good.
Only the strong survive !! If the new world stomps them, so be it !!
YOU ARE A IDIOT..
By the same token should man interfere in cases where man is not responsible for the decline of a species? And how far should we go to make sure that previous action by man is corrected?
The modern horse is an invasive species in North America. Previous species of horses had died out. Should we kill off all the feral (so called wild) horses to protect any native animal or plant that has been affected by horses being here?
Is everyone ready to go kill a horse?
My question would be, how many other species have already gone extinct in the last 10 years. Were those species on a list and was attention drawn to them? I'm not saying these animals are not important, but I have serious concerns about human beings ability to keep their species from going extinct. Maybe we should put ourselves on that list and see what can be done to avoid our own demise.
I have to laugh at the people who bring God and the bible into this serious conversation. Man is going to ruin the worlds enviroment with or without God. I dont know if I will, but the next couple of generations are going to see catasrophic events that will alter the course of mans exsistence or perhaps eliminate it. Over population, pollution, lack of bio-diversity, global warming, war, disease, obesity, stress, rising sea levels, the list goes on and on and on. The earth will survive and hopefully many of it's inhabitants, but man? Time will tell
Suppose we find out too late that one of these almost extinct animals has the genetic quality to cure cancer or other dread diseases.
Well at least all the poor people would have starved to death first, but that is ok, right?
The most endangered species in this country are people who can take care of themselves.
Ha...so true.
Ahh you environmental loonies astound me. You worship at the alter of the static while claiming to be progressive. You believe in crazy conspiracies, yet think that you are educated. You think that the Population Bomb was a great book, despite the lack of accuracy. You worship at the alter of science, yet never account for science's false predictions.
You are fools, lost in the dire predictions of doom and gloom. While certainly we should keep our environment clean, we should go so over-board that we sacrifice human existence to the alter.
I always feel sad that I never got to see a dodo or a passenger pigeon. Buffalo have been brought back from the brink but I don't recall seeing any running wild. If Washington has it's way we will see the extinction of the wild horse, wild burros and wolves. Perish the thought that ranchers, greedy sods, be inconvenienced.
Never seeing a dodo, has never bothered me. Maybe you should get a life.
Horses in North America aren't wild. They are feral. The modern horse does not belong here. Prehistoric horses died out in North America naturally about 13,000 years ago. Man has upset the balance of nature by bringing horses here beginning in the 1500s.
Anyone who complains about man bringing fire ants to North America also better complain about horses.
If you complain about man bringing rabbits and dogs to Australia you also better complain about horses in North America.
The world always goes through changes, and certain species become extinct. Maybe its supposed to happen and man should just stop tampering with nature. Yes, man is responsible for some of it because of hunting, poaching, changes in our environment that affect natural habitat; but still, maybe its just something we need to leave alone.
Wow. Even posing the question: " How hard should mankind try to save every species from extinction?" shows the sad state of the human condition. Today, it is all about Me, me, me, I, I, I, I. You don't hear We or You or Us hardly at all. Everyone is willing to step on everyone and everything else to have it all. Shame on us, and God help us. :-(
We and us? What exactly does that mean?
Throughout the history of the earth one species has become extinct at the hands of another species, its nothing but natural selection, and how are species becoming extinct at the hands of the human species any different from a species becoming extinct at the hands of a species other than human.
Because we are smart enough to know the damage it can cause, because we have technology to acknowledge we are moving a species towards extinction instead of just hunting it until they don't exist anymore and then panicking and wondering what happened.
My oh my, it seems as though BrentAZ has all the answers, doesn't he? So, BrentAZ, what is your solution for all of this? Never mind, you don't have to respond because I'm out of here anyway. This thread didn't need your feeble attempts at knowledge and (cough, cough) expertise. Try to enjoy life a little more, k? You offered nothing of value to this conversation now, did you?
I enjoy making fun of the eco-tards.
I don't have all the answers, but I am not willing to allow people to starve to death to save a minnow. If you are, then you fall into the eco-tard category.
If you save the minnows then you allow the possibility for more fish, if there are more fish then you have more food for people..repeat, expand. If a species is going out on it's own, no prob. If they are dwindling because of pollution and you're cool with that, then the "eco-tard" label actually suits someone with your mindset Brent.
No, what we are discussing is whether we should cut off irrigation to Central CA fields to save a stupid fish. I say no.
"We have an important moral and ethical decision to make: Do these species have a right to survive or do we have a right to drive them to extinction?"
This is a false choice. Consider some of these species extinction would occur anyway, due to the rise of a competitor species. Nature is not static, and some of these animals would become extinct in the absence of humans. "Right to survive" is not something that can be taken away, now go animal survive. What its really intended is "do we have an obligation to HELP them survive?" or "Do we need to conserve large swaths of earth untouched because a particular species cannot survive of its own elsewhere?".
Its very simple. Whats worth more, bio diversity or human life? I say human life. That doesn't mean wanton destruction is OK either. Conservation land is already allocated, national parks are already there, how much of the earth must lay untouched for nature worshipers to be satisfied?
Unabomber violently advocated for total technological abandonment. Some environmentalist really feel this way deep down, he did. On the other end of the spectrum is unfettered raping of the land. Don't let people convince you the spectrum is "responsible science -----> land rape" its really "totally abandon technology (unabomber) ----> land rape". Most normal people are in the middle but this is the debate-scape of environmental/conservation nowadays.
The false choice posed is one written by someone attempting to define the spectrum as "responsible science ----> land rape" and failing to acknowledge that conservation can go too far. To equate us not actively assisting trouble species to "giving them no right to survive" as if we are chasing them and eliminating them. The article equates live and let live (attempt to survive) to humans abandoning some responsibility to help all species survive.
I have to disagree with this whole story. The MOST endangered species, is an honest and REAL, who realizes he or she works FOR the people, Congress or House person!!! The last 4 years could have seen a lot more positive results, but they wanted to play Romper Room instead of working.
Paul Ryan did a great job, at least he made proposals of real change.
Apparently not, because we are not really taking the actions needed to save them and the thousands of others that have/will go extinct due to human interference. Humans have always focused on short term gains with little consideration for long term effects and the bigger picture. If we even treat our own kind with disdain if it means personal gain... how can we possibly consider other species?
One endangered species not mentioned is the LEGAL, self-reliant, responsible American citizen.
But who cares about them?
every living thing has a purpose on this planet. each and every being is important to their ecosystem. if one disappears all will fall. how hard is this to understand. oh wait. humans are completely freaking clueless and heartless.
so what are you doing here?
We shouldn't be here because the DoDo bird doesn't exist! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Save Yourselves..You are on the Brink
Save the Economy..It is on the Brink
Save your Sanity..or find it..It is lost
Save your Empathy and Courage..if ..it is not lost or born already...
Save The animals and Trees..we are ALL Connected...
Save your responsibility for stewardship of the Earth..for yourself...
Save your Denial..for the Excuse makers...
Save your criticisms and judgements for your subjective self...
Save yourself from Ignorance ..which always laughs and screams Objectivity
Save your excuses..for the Eulogy...and do Not be late...for ALL our Funerals..
What a disgusting question. Are they worth it? This is a real low point for the H. sapiens. Someday superior aliens may well as the same question of us. From a purely biological point of view, they would say that eliminating humans would increase the biodiversity of Earth.