Why Save Tiger (Updated)

Update at the end of post

While writing previous post, a question struck me. Why, should we conserve tigers in the first place? Or more precisely, why should government intervene to conserve tiger at all. As I thought over it, I could find no clear reason. So let me present my case, for sake of clarity, I categorize the possible reasons first due to emotional consideration and second after rational analysis, with myself leaning towards emotional.

a. We have a natural empathy towards Tiger (or any animal), which is why animal cruelty is an issue, and in this case survival of species.

b. We are fascinated by Tiger. It is a majestic, graceful animal (albeit with poor oral hygiene), and appeals to our imagination, inner poet so as to say.

c. An attraction for wild. Although it has been quite some time since humans came out of wild, there still is a sense of mystery and magic for our erstwhile habitat, and it is natural to want to preserve it.

As I said earlier I am more open to emotional arguments, for the simple reason that human society is secured by certain emotional preconditions, that collective psyche affects the stability of society, and therefore there is a cost to emotions shared by public, further this cost is not easily calculated or even quantifiable, the best approximation depending upon context.
So yes, I am not averse to the above three arguments provided the economic cost is not too prohibitive. Which is why there are animal cruelty laws or cow slaughter prohibition in the first place.
However I am not sure that conservation of tiger has any significant emotional costs to require state intervention (I will be frank I do not like carnivores or omnivores for that matter, so I really I don't care whether they remain or not).

Now we reach rational consideration. The biggest rational argument is thus, Tiger has a crucial role in ecology as apex predator, therefore its extinction will result in ecological imbalance possibly of a catastrophic scale with a significant economic cost justifying government intervention. I am not sure I agree. Study of ecological balance is very complicated subject requiring a vast amount of data obtained from field surveys and rigorous analysis using robust models. To best of my knowledge this is at best an inexact science, and there are not enough verifiable results to assign a degree of reliability. Therefore, in my opinion, the argument is a dubious one. Further evidence available with us doesn't support the argument. Population of tiger in India decreased from 40,000 in 1900 to less than 2000 at present, while this decrease may or may not have adverse impact, none has been of a scale which can be deemed as catastrophic. Therefore I am more or less that even if tigers were to become totally extinct from present minuscule number the there would be no disaster in the pipeline.

Before I end, I would like to make some general points. One, I know extinction of species is a high profile issue, but extinction of species has been norm throughout history of life, so tigers won't be first to become extinct. Second in the high decibel creed which goes with the name of environmentalism, ecology is always projected as fragile. This is not always true. Ecology varies with location, in some places it is fragile, in other robust, therefore the adjustment to stable equilibrium that ecology makes to human population growth and resulting intervention may vary from place to place. We survived extinction of Mammoth or saber-toothed tiger or American Bison. Third our knowledge of environment, especially knowledge we can act upon, is woefully inadequate, and it may take quite a bit of time and research before we understand the dynamics of environment, considering this, when we intervene to conserve environment we must make sure those actions have connection to the perceived threats. So while conservation of environment is a good thing, we are far from the stage when we can fine tune environment.

In other words, curb your enthusiasm, folks !

Over to you.

PS. This is limited to government intervention, and doesn't rule out any private solution(s).

Update 1: There might be some confusion reading the post. I am not saying government should intervene only if there is some catastrophe, I am essentially arguing that outside of emotional consideration, rational consideration dictates that any such intervention is based upon cost-benefit analysis. Note, this is not straightforward as there is always some human cost involved which may not be easily factored in economic cost.

What I wanted to emphasize was that every environmental concern is not a catastrophe, which is going to endanger the planet.

Update 2: Ok, a related point, just thought it is better to be explicit about it. Diversity is one of the catchphrases of environmentalism. Now diversity is a good thing, but conservation of diversity has a cost, the cost is human progress. I will again emphasize that for any environmental policy to work, it has to consider the costs of development as well as conservation. Most importantly environmental conservation is not the ultimate aim, it is just a means, final goal being the well being of humanity, this is also the true meaning of sustainable development.

Update 3: My bad, In all this discussion, I forgot to state my position, which while may differ in specific cases, is generally in favour of conservation. Primarily because being a vegetarian I abhor killing animals. Also as I emphasized environmental science is an inexact science with predictions hard to come by, now human society is witnessing an exponential rate of growth which is causing tremendous stress on environmental equilibrium. In absence of further information and considering that environment is a complex system, I would like to err on side of caution.