Honey Bees are vanishing at an alarming rate and it’s estimated within the next few decades that they and many other insect species will go extinct and vanish forever. At first, this doesn’t sound like a problem, just a few bugs missing right? Well, this is actually potentially a huge threat to our ecosystems because if there are no bees or insects plants can’t be pollinated and without pollination, they can’t survive. Over time many different codependent species will eventually die causing a lack of biodiversity. If there’s no biodiverse plant life then what’s going to feed deers or other reliant species? Nothing near what would be needed to be considered sustainable. They will all eventually go extinct and if all species in this category are also gone what will feed carnivorous species? This will eventually lead to the total collapse of all ecosystems which will systematically end almost all life on earth!
In the article “Rethinking Extinction,” by James K. Boyce the primary focus was on the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Boyce touches on facts such as when it happened, what caused it, and the effect it had on us in the future. There was one positive effect of this species going extinct and it was that it brought awareness to the public that we are nature’s greatest threat. We are a danger to the environment as well as extinction rates, also that extinction is a very serious problem that can’t be taken lightly. Our carelessness can and will lead to countless other species facing extinction and we can possibly cause the 6th mass extinction. With that awareness brought up different environmental laws were put into place to prevent other species at risk from suffering the same fate of the passenger pigeon. Unfortunately, the author didn’t cover or go in-depth at all with what those laws were called and what they did or what they protected, and if they in fact actually saved any species at risk. Later in the article, Boyce brought up that species in the present time are now facing another threat, climate change which is also known as global warming. Boyce again unfortunately failed to go into more detail on that topic to back up his thought. Lastly, he then talks about the scientific advancements in genetic engineering we have had over the course of time since the extinction of the passenger pigeon could bring it and other species back from extinction. This topic then led to Boyce asking some important questions such as “If we did bring back extinct species would this have a positive effect on the environment?”. He also voices his concerns with the idea that if the public believed extinction was reversible then it would undermine their efforts to save them or divert the scarce resources from saving endangered species to genetic engineering.
Overall this article was very informative and provided valuable information about the passenger pigeon and had the evidence to support the author’s claim, but there were a few issues with the article that I’d like to mention. One of those issues was that there was lots of unnecessary information, which I felt could’ve been replaced with something more valuable such as information on the laws that were passed to preserve endangered species. Boyce said “federal and state wildlife protection laws were passed”; it didn’t state what laws or what they did, he only mentioned to us that they were passed.
Another issue was that most of the important points of the article were loosely spoken about, for example when the author mentioned that population growth in the city affected the birds, he didn’t mention how the cities growth affected them. This left me with many questions like did the city growth ruin the birds’ homes? or did it ruin the food sources? All the article mentioned was “Only 6 percent of Americans lived in cities when Martha Washington died, in 1802. In 1914, the number was closer to 50 percent. The passenger pigeon’s extinction was bound up with these changes” this information did little to nothing to give me the full scope of what this has to do with the passenger pigeon extinction.
One last issue I found was that the article left out information about the changes in the environment and food chain from the disappearance of the passenger pigeon. I think this is crucial information to help the reader fully understand the full extent of the damage that an extinction of a species causes on the environment. Here’s an example I found from the article “Why Endangered Species Matter” written by Renee Cho she said “the impact of the wolves in Yellowstone Park, which were hunted to near extinction by 1930. Without them, the elk and deer they had preyed upon thrived, and their grazing decimated streamside willows and aspens, which had provided habitat for songbirds. This left the stream banks susceptible to erosion, and a decline in songbirds allowed mosquitoes and other insects the birds would have eaten to multiply. When the wolves were reintroduced to the park in 1995, they once again preyed on the elk; plant life returned to the stream banks and along with it, birds, beavers, fish, and other animals.” Her article also includes plenty of other real-world examples past and present and goes further in-depth on the consequences and domino effect of its extinction. I think if Boyce implemented more of these kinds of strategies in his writing it would have been much easier to grasp the full extent of the issue.
In conclusion, we as a society must be more perceptive of the effects we have on the environment and the species that live within it. If we do not make changes now we may cause irreversible damage to our planet and all life on earth.
REFERENCES
Boyce, James K., et al. [Criticism]: Rethinking Extinction. 27 Oct. 2015, harpers.org/archive/2015/11/rethinking-extinction/.
Cho, Renee. Why Endangered Species Matter. 26 Mar. 2019, blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/03/26/endangered-species-matter/.
Pearce, Fred. Global Extinction Rates: Why Do Estimates Vary so Wildly? 17 Aug. 2015, e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly.
Urban, Mark C. Accelerating Extinction Risk from Climate Change. 1 May 2015, science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571.
I think this is a great starting piece, but I think the opening paragraph could be adjusted; maybe first talking about the important of endangered species then go into specific species because I thought it was about honey bees when I first started reading it. I think you did a good job a summarizing your article but I would focus more on what the author did talk about and save what didn’t for the response part of the essay. I think you did a good job at using your sources and pulling information from them for your writing. You have a good starting piece and with a little adjustment and more outline on the main idea in the opening paragraph this will great essay.
Good job for first draft! Response is somewhat stronger than summary, I’d say. some work needed with citation.
Issues to consider in revision:
–I think it works fine to use honeybees as jumping off point, since that has been much in the news the past few years. I do understand peer’s view that it may make reader think essay will focus on honeybees, so maybe use some more general phrase early on to direct reader to more general issue? I’m not sure what way I’d go, but think about it…
–End of para. 1 sounds a bit alarmist–maybe that’s warranted, but it struck me as a little over the top…?
–In summary part of essay (para. 2) I’d like to hear more about passenger pigeon history, how/why it happened, and its importance in shocking people into awareness of danger of man. You jump quickly to effects without explaining context. And I think you’re missing a little his main point, what he means by rethinking extinction in title, and how perhaps environmentalists should/are moving away from view of man as ultimate “bad guy.” As peer reviewer said, I think you’re getting into some response in the middle of this para. (tlaking about what he’s missing).
–Response works well to raise additional questions. But work needed on use of sources. Instead of using author/title of Cho article, use in-text citation. (Quote is awfully long; also, note that a quote over 4 lines long needs to be set as block quote–I know we didn’t talk about that, but look it up.) Did you use Pearce and Urban sources? I can’t see where, if you did. Works Cited needs more info (title of journal or website, and there’s no et al. for Boyce article–that would mean there were additional authors).