Leo Tolstoy once said, “The value of a life is only realised once it is lost”. This is the dilemma we face in today’s society as we struggle to decide between which species we want to conserve and which we are forced to leave behind. A popular idea that lead conservation by the reins is single species conservation.
Single species conservation is when all or a significant portion of resources is directed towards saving a single species like the Panda or Tiger. These ideas were made popular by campaigns in the late 20th century like ‘Save the Tiger’ and ‘Save the Panda’. Parties in proposition to single species conservation often talk about things like how people are more likely to give donations when there’s a cute animal on the poster. They also repeatedly emphasize how these help raise awareness to conservation as a whole and also help preserve the entire ecosystem, creating a personal bond with the common person. You may be willing to donate for the tiger or a panda, but would you do the same for a snake?
Critiques of these strategies state how conservation of every species is ideal, but not possible. They give the example of the panda, an extremely expensive species to conserve; talking about how billions of dollars spent turned out to be futile due to how hard it is to make Pandas breed in captivity and their reducing natural habitats. Extinction is a natural process. Selective conservation based on ‘cuteness’ or ‘adorability’ is unfair as unappealing animals are simply left to die out. The role flashy posters played was immense, but their time is now long past.
I believe that the most effective way to go forward with conservation is to conserve biodiversity hotspots, conserving diverse areas of wildlife like rainforests or swamps and even the world seems to be heading this way. At the end of the day, both sides make valid points, so I present this: does the life of a single creature on a poster outweigh the lives of a million others?