If the laws of nature dictate survival of the fittest, do you think human beings have a responsibility towards endangered

species of animals? Under the concept of survival of the fittest, the peril of species is not a random occurrence, but the natural result of the prevalence of the species who better adapted to the changes of their environment. Survival of some and the extinction of others is the consequence of pressure on the species due to the lack of resources. Similarly, other commentators argue that principles of naturalism place man squarely in competition with other organisms, which in turn places no moral obligation on men to preserve endangered species. However, due to the fact that human beings have caused unnatural changes in the environment, which have in turn caused a great number of species to go extinct, it is understandable why preservationists would not consider modern humans as natural actors in the natural selection process. A 2008 International Union for Conservation of Nature report stated that nearly one third of amphibians, one in eight birds, and one in four mammals are threatened with extinction. Human activities have threatened the existence of plants and animals worldwide. Overhunting, deforestation, and encroachment on natural habitats all pose threats. The current rate of species extinction is between one hundred and one thousand times greater than the expected natural rate. However, this is not the only reason we should be responsible towards endangered species. It is in their own self-interest to maintain a diverse bio-system and preserving as many species as possible strengthens that bio-diversity, as well as social culture. Some opponents argue that protecting endangered non-human animals is unnecessary because their eradication is merely part of the development of a society, the evolution of the biosphere and the natural tensions between species. They argue that the elimination of national emblems doesnt set a problem for a societys culture; instead it will promote the adoption of a new animal with which future generations will feel better identified. Furthermore, others communicate that the extinction of certain animals is just part of survival of the fittest and that through adaptation, new species will evolve. They continue by stating that these species will still serve their biological, recreational and medicinal purposes. In addition, some humans claim it is biologically natural to treat ones species favorably; therefore, saving endangered species is simply a voluntary act of assistance. Some speciesists agree that morality is entirely a human construct and is the exclusive province of humanity. It cannot be extended to other forms of life. All other animal species live exclusively by the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, this means that even the human species cannot escape it's own extinction if the environment becomes unfavourable towards us. With the above argument, it would mean that there is nothing wrong with it, in fact it would a part of nature. Furthermore, the extermination of endangered species belittles countries nationalities, weakens biodiversity and promotes insensibility and irrationality. National symbols cannot simply be replaced, they have been adopted and cherished and are considered invaluable historic and cultural heritage. Furthermore, although many argue it is merely survival of the fittest, this natural phenomena is a process of natural selection, however, the mass slaughtering of many species is not a natural choice.