This past week, Suni, one of the last living northern white rhinos, was found dead inside the Kenya conservatory where he’s lived since 2009. One of only two remaining males and seven white rhinos total, his death serves as a powerful warning for the future of the animal world in its entirety. This dialogue isn’t new or astonishing, and Suni’s death, though disheartening, is unlikely to bring about any large change in the realm of species preservation.
I could spend the rest of this column enumerating the various ways we can tackle this issue: cross-mating between species, enforcing federal protection of endangered animals, halting the uncontrolled growth of exotic species that could gradually take the place of those endemic to that environment, etc. But what difference could 600 words possibly make in addition to countless studies and advertisements denouncing this same ignorance? It’s clear that society as a whole tends to learn more effectively from mistakes than from admonitions, so I propose an exploration of our continued negligence.
To do so I find it necessary to provide empirical support in the name of legitimacy. According to a study conducted by the World Wildlife Fund, there are more than 5,600 currently endangered animal species and 801 species that have gone completely extinct. Though some of these species have become endangered by organic causes, such as natural disasters and overspecialization, this phenomenon is more often brought about by man. Our growing dependence on forests and mines for resources and often intentional manipulation of ecosystems for profit play a huge part in robbing many living things of their ability to survive.
The negative implications of our actions will be undeniable if we continue in this course of action. The environmental effects are the most obvious, as they permanently affect the way we will live our lives after forests and oceans are completely and thoughtlessly depleted. We’ll then be forced to find alternate sources of energy, which, as we are learning, are costly and greatly dependent upon local resources and climates. Developed nations tend to stake claims in the less urban regions of developing nations by placing oil-seeking corporations on foreign land. These establishments often completely destroy surrounding land and many indigenous groups’ ways of life. As the lives of these natives can no longer be supported, they’ll be forced to move to the cities, where finite government-controlled resources will be stretched to accommodate their needs.
When it comes to our food intake, only a few decades will pass before our fisheries are too polluted by our waste, and the same will surely happen with meat industries. How then will we satisfy the dietary demands of more than seven billion people?
The destruction of the natural world has non-physical implications as well. British Romanticism in the early 1800s was unquestionably inspired by a growing respect for nature. What will happen to art and literature if “nature” becomes marred beyond recognition, dies in the face of human greed or ceases to exist entirely? What effect could this have on the psyche of our children — entire generations who will never truly understand what it means to have “a breath of fresh air” or who will marvel over stories of the northern white rhino and the Amur leopard, never able to dream of seeing them in real life?
Some of these implications may not come to fruition in the ways I’ve enumerated, but there will be implications. We cannot deny that our actions today will affect the future of the animal world in ways we’re not prepared for. Warnings only raise awareness, and awareness is no longer enough.