There is an ongoing cultural debate regarding whether or not it is ethical to keep wild animals in captivity. A common defense for captivity is that most of those animals are receiving care for conservation related reasons. At first glance this does seem like a compelling argument: why would anyone advocate for the endangerment of any species when they could be kept safe and cared for? On the other hand, I raise the question: is every species worth conserving?

A friend of mine argues vehemently for humans to cease their intervention in the lives of the giant panda, which was considered an endangered species for many years until they were reclassified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (as reported by WWF (World Wildlife Fund)) as “vulnerable”. There are considerable efforts made to preserve the giant panda as a species, but as it turns out, giant pandas don’t make it easy for us to keep them alive. Female pandas have a comically short 3-day fertility period annually, and due to their low calorie bamboo diet, they often elect not to mate in order to preserve energy (CBS).  My friend’s assessment follows that if the pandas are too lazy to reproduce, it is not our job to keep them alive. But would leaving the giant pandas to fend for themselves be the right thing to do, or are we somehow obligated to keep the species from going extinct?

Contemporary philosopher Holmes Rolston III writes on the issue of species preservation in “Duties to Endangered Species” (1985). In the article he explores what we, as moral humans, owe to endangered species. Rolston believes in the idea of “ecocentric holism.” “Holism” is the belief that interactions between whole entities or groups are more important than any one individual member of said groups, and “ecocentric” denotes a focus on the ecological world. Logically, this holistic approach suggests that Rolston would believe that humans have a duty to keep the giant panda from going extinct, but no inherent obligation to save any one particular panda. So the case seems pretty cut and dry: we are doing the right thing by helping preserve the giant panda.

Or so you may think. Of course, there is always more to consider: the theory of holism supposes that all things are deeply interconnected, and regarding ecocentric holism, there is a connection not only between individual members that make a species, but also between a species to the environment around them. In his article, Rolston writes that “it is not a preservation of species but of species in the system that we desire” (7). By this reasoning, would Rolston approve of our intervention with the giant panda? Many members of this species are kept separate from their natural habitat so as to be monitored and bred by humans, and when released to the wild some of these pandas do die. At the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding in China, there are 200 captive pandas that are cared for in an enclosed space. The institute is open for visitors and makes a profit off the ticket sales for entrance. Is this ethical? Does this do an adequate job of preserving the species, or a better job of commodifying the members of it for further human consumption?

Furthermore, Rolston does not believe that natural extinction is an issue because it allows for evolution to take its course and allow species to diversify and grow, but that anthropogenic extinction (extinction caused by humans) is an issue we are obligated to address. We can again refer to the maladaptively small window of fertility in female giant pandas coupled with their calorie-preserving laziness with regards to mating. Is this really an issue of human intervention or simply the natural demise of the species? If we accept that the endangerment of pandas occurred because of this low birth rate, Rolston would likely argue that we have no duty to ensure the survival of the species as a whole, because it is happening naturally. However, if we acknowledge the anthropogenic damage to the giant panda’s natural habitats, we may also accept that this is what caused their endangerment to begin with, thereby bestowing upon us the duty to undo this wrong. In this case, according to Rolston, we are doing the morally right thing by breeding pandas in captivity.

Given Rolston’s theoretical framework for assessing our duty to the giant panda’s survival, you could argue for or against our efforts to preserve them depending on which aspects of the case you weigh more heavily. My friend maintains that the extinction of the giant panda would be natural, but others may focus on the ways humans have endangered them. Matters of profit and cultural significance further complicate the question. It is therefore difficult to definitively establish the ethical implications of wildlife conservation, and whether or not the pandas are, in fact, worth saving.

Work Cited

Rolston, Holmes III, “Duties to Endangered Species,” BioScience vol. 35, no. 11, 1985, https://sites.google.com/a/rams.colostate.edu/rolston-csu-website/environmental-ethics/ee-chbk/duties-edangered-species-biosci-a-pdf