Stuff The Tiger Long Live Extinction Analysis

Dear Mr Clarkson,

I have recently read 'Stuff The Tiger – Long Live Extinction' with interest, and write to inform you of the failings in your article. Although there may be some element of truth in your main point, that we shouldn't care about animals becoming extinct, the confusing way that you argue it prevents me from considering it seriously. There are a number of serious flaws both in how you present your argument and in the points that you make, and I hope to outline these to you in my letter.

Throughout your article, you repeatedly use exaggeration in an attempt to conceal the weaknesses in your points. For instance, when writing about how to combat extinction, you imply the only reasonable proposal is to 'hunt down and kill the poachers'.
You make reference to the number of fallen in the First World War, a matter that bears no relevance to the subject of extinction, and plays a part in your argument solely to draw on the heartstrings of your readers. In fact, you say that 'eco-mentalists ignore the fact' that these men died, and that they focus on the extinctions of animals during that period instead. You can hardly argue that the deaths from the First World War were ignored, by 'eco-mentalists' or anyone else. You may not be aware, but a person can be against all kinds of killing, whether animal or human, without being contradictory. Just because environmentalists express a concern for the extinction of animals during a time of war, it doesn't mean that they don't care about the deaths that resulted from that war. You earlier suggest that we should not kill poachers, as it would 'put an end to the only industry' locals have. Have you not heard of farming, Mr Clarkson? In India, a country known for its long history in tiger poaching, 53% of the workforce is employed in agriculture. The huge number of people working in this sector is especially prominent in rural areas, where poaching takes place. However, when looking at the national economy, poaching does not make an appearance as a even a tiny source of income. While poaching may be one trade for locals, it is far from their
Although initially you seem to care so deeply about stopping the 'only industry' for those with 'no healthcare' and 'little food', you conclude your article by stating that 'the only creatures that really matter are those in our social group'. If all animals were driven to extinction, the poaching industry could not exist because there would simply be nothing to poach. So surely, if you are such an activist for protecting these poor people's 'only industry', extinction is the last thing you would want? But then again, you make it quite clear that you don't care about anyone else. If you're going to write an article, at least be sure of your intentions. Not only is your main point contradictory, but it fails to have any substance to it. You say the extinction of the tiger would be 'as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star', but when a species becomes extinct, there are irreparable damages to its former ecosystem. Habitats function because of the delicate balance of species, which rely on each other for survival. We've seen it happen countless times before, like in the case