Every 15 minutes, a poacher kills an elephant for its tusks.
Does one elephant matter? Check it out:
https://www.paulallen.com/china-takes-aggressive-steps-to-close-ivory-trade/#1545-2
Previously I raised the issue of, how much do we want to pour resources into the protection of “charismatic” species such as the elephant, when more humble unnoticed creatures (and plants) go ignored at the planet’s peril? Not to mention the multitudes of suffering human beings.
It’s a serious question, but let me be irrational for the moment, since it seems that a little irrationality can go a long way toward positive outcomes, where sheer logic falls short (read Antonio Damasio).
Does Mere Symbolism Count?
To some extent, the elephant plight is “merely” symbolic, but in the case of elephants, symbolism matters quite a bit. We know that birds such as crows and parrots, are pretty smart; there are invertebrates such as squid and octopi that appear to remember key facts and to reason cleverly from them. But unlike the rest, elephants—for land animals, at least—may be as close to us emotionally as a non-primate species can get. Every elephant death reverberates throughout the herd in a way familiar to us.
There are plenty of species more important to human well-being than the elephant, insect pollinators being the most obvious example. So how strong is the argument for symbolism?
The symbolism is especially significant here: if we can’t care for a creature as intelligent, social, sensitive, and visible as the elephant, what can we care for in the non-human world?
We are torn. So many human beings, such as Syrian refugees, are suffering unspeakable cruelties, so how high can we prioritize elephant protection? But the priority is up there. I just ask you to think about it.