First Ever List of 100 Most Threatened Species on the Planet Complied

Mickeroo

Apparently this is the first time this has ever been done. The IUCN have made a report listing the 100 most threatened species on the planet. It raises an interesting moral dilemma in that people are more likely to try conserve animals which provide some sort of service for people:

“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. This has made it increasingly difficult for conservationists to protect the most threatened species on the planet,” said Prof Jonathan Baillie, Director of Conservation at the Zoological Society of London, lead author of the report called “Priceless or Worthless?” to be presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in South Korea this week.

He added: “while the utilitarian value of nature is important conservation goes beyond this. Do these species have a right to survive or do we have a right to drive them to extinction?”

“All the species listed are unique and irreplaceable. If they vanish, no amount of money can bring them back. However, if we take immediate action we can give them a fighting chance for survival. But this requires society to support the moral and ethical position that all species have an inherent right to exist,” said Dr Ellen Butcher of the Zoological Society of London, a co-author of the report.

Source: http://www.sci-news.com/biology/article00578.html

I haven't had a chance to read the report yet, it's quite long at 122 pages but it doesn't look too dense though, nicely illustrated and everything.

Full online version of the report here: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/44234ae6#/44234ae6/1

What do you folks think? Is it a lost cause to try and get society at large to change its views on conservation and ethics when it comes to animal protection?

EDIT: Just to point out an error on my part, the list also includes plants and fungi, not just animals.

A picture gallery published today by New Scientist entitled Five worthless species in need of saving was inspired by the same report.

Is a species worth saving if it offers no benefit to humans? The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has drawn up a list of 100 threatened animals, plants and fungi that it says have unique values which make them worth saving. Take a look and decide for yourself.

It acts as a taster for the whole report. (The full report, at 122 pages as you point out, is a daunting prospect to read!)

Link.

Edit:

The Guardian also just published an article on the same topic, along with a full list with details of the 100 species, and a photo gallery, too.

steddyeddy

Saw that havent read it yet though. It will be a sad read Ill bet.

Birdnuts

Mickeroo wrote: »

Apparently this is the first time this has ever been done. The IUCN have made a report listing the 100 most threatened species on the planet. It raises an interesting moral dilemma in that people are more likely to try conserve animals which provide some sort of service for people:



.

Since we are still learning new things about how ecosystems work and how species interact in them, I think it would be the height of folly to right off any species in such a way

Oh Hell Oui!

Birdnuts wrote: »

Since we are still learning new things about how ecosystems work and how species interact in them, I think it would be the height of folly to right off any species in such a way

I agree 100% with this, however attaching an economic value to a species may be the quickest way to get people to understand the value of saving it.

In a matter where time is in short supply it could help.

Birdnuts

Oh Hell Oui! wrote: »

I agree 100% with this, however attaching an economic value to a species may be the quickest way to get people to understand the value of saving it.

In a matter where time is in short supply it could help.

Oh I don't doubt that(it was just the way it was phrased;)) - without the money safari tourism brings into the likes of Kenya, Tanzania etc. the mega-fauna in these countries would be all but gone by now. Indeed the good thing about preserving the likes of Lions,Jumbos etc. is that the whole ecosystem and all its inhabitats benefit since such a large area of prestine habitat is required for these species. I know myself from travelling to these NP's and conservancies in both Kenya and Zim that the abundance of wildlife in protected lands compared to surrounding areas is enormous. With the ever exploding human and livestock population across Africa this stark contrast will only become more extreme!!

Mickeroo

Yea I agree with ye there. Attaching some sort of value (monetary being the most effective unfortunately) seems to be the way to go. Making people see the inherent value the so called "worthless" species provide through biodiversity and such is the hard one. It really requires a whole paradigm shift in the way society sees itself in relation to nature imo.