Which are in more need of saving, Gorillas or Monkeys?
Yes but do you really think we would lose Gorillas or monkeys as there are
so many different tipes of each spread all over the world and they are not really in any threat.
Conservation projects which focus on protecting habitats and educating local people about living sustainably with wildlife will support a multitude of species: gorillas and monkeys could be protected simultaneously. Suggesting an 'either/or' approach to conserving wildlife reminds me of Chris Packham's recent comment about letting giant pandas die out.
Funding and resources in conservation are insufficient and organisations do have to prioritise their efforts. With gorillas, the primary threat to their future survival is forest clearance and degradation, where human populations are competing for land resource. There are also issues around poaching, disease, illegal mining and civil war. With monkeys, habitat loss and degradation is similarly a major threat to survival, alongside problems such as the bushmeat trade. As with most wildlife conservation situations, a dual approach of protecting existing habitat/wildlife populations alongside working with local people to develop ways of living sustainably with the natural environment would seem to be the best option.
We don't have to think about giving a good planet for our children. We have to give good children to our planet.
Gorillas and Monkeys are both very important so why would we want to save one and not the other
I think Gorillas are more endangered but we neeeeeed to save all animals not just gorillas and monkeys
i think that all the animals need to be helped.
if we just let alone their habitats they would survive easier.
Oooo - a moral question!
Who are we to judge? "Survival of the fittest" says we should choose the ape over the monkey as they are more closely related to us. Therefore the ape is a better species for us to experiment on for vaccines against disease for our own survival
i think that both of them are in danger because their forests are getting chopped down.
I agree with the opinion that both of them need to be saved but I also think that it depends on what spiecies of monkey it is.
If you answered this question based alone on which species needed our help more as it is more endangered than the other, the answer would be Mountain Gorillas. However, this is an unfair answer as you are looking at one particular type of Gorilla, whereas with monkeys, you are looking at a whole range of sub-species (monkeys being a general term for many different types).
However, answering this question on a moral basis would come down to which animal you prefer. If conservationists did this,how many fewer animals would we have now? For example, in New zealand, should conservationists be focusing all their combined efforts on saving the kiwi, or should they also be spreading their sparse funds and people to save the less favoured Weta? This question shows that you need a vast range of people who are willing to save both (or however many other animals) in any scenario. It's not: which animal should we save? It's: how should we save both of these animals?
gorillas are more endangered than monkeys so i would say GORILLAS!!!!!!!!!!
I think that they both need saving. But when u say monkey, what spciese do u mean?
I thought they where the same type of animals so that group should be saved.Also I am that people can choose between them as they are both awsome animals.
This is my first post on these forums, and I just wanted to comment on the question of how we ascribe 'worth' to one species over another. Is the mountain gorilla or the hump backed whale more deserving of being protected than say an uninspiring species of little grey moth in a rain forest that almost nobody has ever seen? When the moth is gone, it is gone for ever, just like the gorilla or whale, but does anybody, except perhaps a scientist studying the moth, really care THAT much? As much as about a mammalian species that we can relate to more? Does anybody care emotionally about some minute, deep sea prawn that might exhibit some extraordinary and unique behaviour that is seen nowhere else in the animal kingdom?
All species which exist have spent the same amount of time evolving uniquely to live in their own particular environment, They have adapted and re-adapted countless times as those environments changed, until they are as we see them now, in this moment in time, a snapshot of this stage in their evolution. Complex or simple, unique or diverse, whatever its particular tactic for survival, each species is EXACTLY as it needs to be to exploit the environment it evolved for. People talk about 'successful' species, generally referring to its being widespread or having an ability to adapt to multiple habitats, but that's not the only form of success, and if a creature is living and reproducing, it is, ergo, successful. Every creature is equally fit, in the Darwinian sense, to survive in its particular habitat, otherwise it simply wouldn't exist.
That is, of course, until that habitat changes. And environments do change, (usually quite naturally, without intervention by man or other large animal population), and some species which find themselves unable to adapt quickly enough, die out, while others survive. It would be wonderful if no species ever went extinct, but if they didn't there would be no new niches available for new species to evolve to fill. There would be no evolution. There would be no 'higher' forms of life, and no humans to regret the passing of beautiful creatures, or to try to preserve the lives of the ones they like best.
My view? That despite our instinctive, (and very human), emotional reaction to warm blooded, furry animals that remind us of ourselves, all life forms are equally valid and important, (except perhaps in the sense that some species may be more vital to the life cycles of others). The scientist in me protests that it is anthropomorphic and artificial to care more about the cuddly animals from our nursery picture books, than about the less appealing, slimy ones, or those with too many legs. But, I also acknowledge that that is a very human thing to do so, and if we weren't the human beings that we are, we wouldn't care about preserving any animal life, except perhaps instinctively as a food resource. Chimpanzees, for instance, regularly hunt and kill monkeys for food, and clearly have no such qualms about eating their near(ish) relatives. African elephants uproot trees to feed on the leaves, and can cause serious damage to their environments. So, although to destroy is clearly not only a human trait, to care about that destruction does seem to be, (albeit perhaps a fairly recent one), so I shouldn't knock it.
The bottom line: Some of the beautiful life forms we care about are GOING to become extinct, despite our best efforts to preserve them, along with millions of others we don't know about, (flies, beetles, tiny fish), and may care about even less. But we have to keep doing what we do, anthropomorphic and unscientific though our reasons may sometimes be, because that's the only way any of it is going to work.
I think gorillas need saving more because when you say gorillas there are just two species, but with monkeys there are lots of species.
To be honest it depends which type of monkey of gorilla you are talking about, obviously the most endangered would definetly be at the top of the list but both are equal, instead of saving on of the two save both and make the world a better place
They both deserve to be saved equally, I agree.
I think more types of gorrillas are endangered than monkey varieties if that's what the origional question means.
Bear in mind that some types are closer to extiction than others so really that question is very vague.
Going back now, gorrilas need more saving, apparently.
Despite this, if u look at my last post on this topic I still think all creatures big, small, cute and/or strange deserve protecting.
"Marigold127" or somegumbob like that puts it better if u will just scroll up
Why not save both? They both deserve to be saved and the more animals we save the more animals for the future generation and we all know about global warming and deforestation.