One school of thought holds that the extinction of species has historically been proven inevitable, so any artificial intervention is not necessary. While, to a certain extent, agreeing with the former claim, I believe that preventing human-driven biodiversity loss necessitates urgent intervention, as these cases are fundamentally different from nature-driven ones.
Granted, there are compelling reasons deeming the inevitability of animal extinctions. Many geologists emphasize that several mass extinction events occurred throughout history, stating the ineluctable reduction of biodiversity without any human involvement. These incidents were often attributed to significant climate transformations, gradual temperature shifts, and hidden tectonic movements, all of which can potentially cause natural catastrophes, disruptive to the food chains. Such a repercussion is often scientifically found to be the main cause of several animals dying out. The notorious Ice Age and the legendary “Great Dying”, where a majority of the ecosystem disappeared solely due to climate conditions, exemplify this well. In this sense, refusing to prevent animal extinction due to the demise of species being naturally unavoidable seems perfectly justifiable.
However, such an argument fails to factor in a common feature of those natural causes, an extraordinarily prolonged process, spanning millions, even hundreds of millions of years. This allows the ecosystem and its respective species to adapt to disruption and habitat loss gradually, minimizing the likelihood of large-scale extinction. Such a case is unlikely in modern times where human activities have significantly accelerated biodiversity deterioration, to an extent outpacing any mass extinction events in the past, leaving limited time and space for nature to repair itself. Deforestation, hazardous industrial waste, and illegal mass poaching all cause anthropogenic ecological damage, intensifying animal extinction. Without prolonged periods for nature to recover, this hasty pace of biodiversity decline can inevitably lead to the irreversible destruction of the ecosystem on which humans themselves rely for survival. Completely dismissing the role of people in animal extinction, therefore, appears short-sighted and shallow, as human intervention should be at the heart of preventing further damage caused by themselves to the environment. In conclusion, although natural extinctions caused by external factors are somewhat unavoidable, artificial prevention measures should be considered urgent, given the decisive role of people both in accelerating the damage and preserving the environment. When ecological damage is caused artificially, intervention is not optional, but a responsibility to prevent an artificial sixth mass extinction.