thomsen.

A good cause can sometimes be distracted by those who see it as a opportunity to exploit it.  What if you were asked the question, "Are we obligated to help preserve the region? How, and to what extent?", yet, what if you were even asked, "Aren't we obligated to help conserve the population in the United States?". This question brings a valid point: how to you balance what is more critical or more important than that of your own population? How do you question the values of those who believe that "we" might be causing more harm to ourselves than to the Caribou? I believe that we are somewhat obligated to help preserve the region to the best of our abilities, yet, we also must be obligated to ensure that everyday Americans have all the resources available to them to ensure that country national security, economy, and survival. We can never be able to place a market value to any region...the cost cannot be determined because there are external factors that we cannot take into account. 

The Endangered Species Act was enacted for a very good reason. We need to protect these species because most of these species cannot defend themselves. Would it be just to execute a human because the Caribou thought that we were depriving them of their natural resources? To the Caribou, yes; to the human that was executed, no. It seem logical to use wisdom in these situations, like the wise saying, "Put yourselves in that person shoes, then will you really understand what that person is going through", or even, "Doing something is better than doing nothing...", yet, at times, like with the Caribou, maybe we would be better off if we did nothing. If we just left nature take it's course, then all would be well...or would it?

Watch the entire film below: