People always face the dilemma: whether to focus limited resources to protect biodiversity for our future survival or develop immediate financial profits or convenience but perhaps at the expense of environments. Although it's reported that the rate of species loss has risen to 100 to 1000 per million species annually, the powerful industrial lobbies, who control the modern discourse system, would like people to believe that we can survive while other species are quickly and quietly dying off, thus danger of mass species distinction is woefully underestimated by most people. Given the unfortunate hedonistic modern values promoted by those profit-blinded but powerful businessmen and it's impossible and unrealistic to ask most people to sacrifice money or overall conveniences (that is, it's ideal to put extraordinary efforts that we cannot stand), society should put as more efforts as it can to persuade people to save dangerous species.  First of all, species are dying off at a dramatic speed, which is mostly due to human's predatory behaviors. It's widely accepted by scholars that humans drive mass extinction faster than species can evolve, perhaps 100-1000 species loss per million, a situation comparable to the previous five "mass extinctions", the last of which was when dinosoars were wiped out 65m years ago.  Even though extinction is part of species evolution, steady rate is thought to be 1 per million every year suggested by fossil records before civilization. However, present extinction is subject to habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, pollution, global warming,  hunting and trade, and invasive species, all of which are in direct or indirect contact with humans. Biodiversity protection is quite important even in the most self-interested and short-sighted view. The tolerant extinction is about 10 times the background rate (that is 10 per million annually) if the world was to be safe for humans, said by Stuart who was one of the Swedish scientists that responsible for thresholds of resilience study. If such limit were exceeded and ecological balance was destroyed, disasters would come, more immediate than one could imagine. Take orchids as an example: without opportunities to ingeniously adapt to specific pollinators, orchids  cannot avoid hazards of rampant crossbreeding in the wild and even assure its survival as discrete identities.  Unfortunately, driven by materialism and hedonism in this highly-industrialized era, survival pursuing for humans is precipitated as unnecessary pleasure indulgence, which leaves us no place to argue that we have sacrificed enough in protecting other species. The opponents of conservation might refer "big cost" to save species that might alternatively increase public material welfare; however, efforts are always not too much for species protection, but for unnecessary self-enjoyments. Thinking about ads,  which are mostly controlled by profit-blinded businessmen,  how many are inducing our carnal desires instead of restricting them for environments issues!  Anyway, when you're good to others, you are best to yourself. In case not get secluded or abandoned by the earth, we should clear our profit-blinded eyes to identify what is truly important for our survival. Biodiversity protection is not that difficult if we forget those stupid money and convenience stuff for just a while. Therefore, it's never outmoded for the society to highlight saving species in this interest-come-first world.