Question

"Useless Creatures"

by Richard Conniff

This article contains no useful information. Zero. Nada. Nothing. If usefulness is your criterion for reading, thank you
very much for your time and goodbye, we have nothing more to say. The truth is that I am bored to tears by
usefulness. I am bored, more precisely, of pretending usefulness is the thing that really matters.
I mostly write about wildlife. So here is how it typically happens for me: A study comes out indicating that species x,
y and z are in imminent danger of extinction, or that some major bioregion of the planet is being sucked down into
the abyss. And it’s my job to convince people that they should care, even as they are racing to catch the 7:10 train,
or wondering if they’ll be able to pay this month’s (or last month’s) rent.
My usual strategy is to trot out a list of ways even the most obscure species can prove unexpectedly, yes, useful.
The first effective treatment that turned H.I.V. from a death sentence into a manageable condition? Inspired by the
biochemistry of a nondescript Caribbean sponge. The ACE inhibitors that are currently among our most effective
treatments for cardiovascular disease (and which have lately been proposed as a treatment for Ebola)? Developed
by studying the venom of the fer-de-lance, a deadly snake found from Mexico to northern South America. The new
medical bandage that’s gentle enough for the delicate skin of newborns and the elderly? Modeled on the silk of
spider webs.
Every time I begin this line of argument, though, I get the queasy feeling that I am perpetuating a fallacy. It’s not that
I’m telling lies; these examples are entirely real. But given, for instance, that three-quarters of our farm crops depend
on insect pollinators, or that more than 2.6 billion people rely directly on seafood for protein, it seems a little obvious
to be reminding people that wildlife can be useful, or, more to the point, that human survival depends on wildlife.
Without saying so out loud, the argument also implies that animals matter only because they benefit humans, or
because just possibly, at some unknowable point in the future, they might benefit humans.
You don’t have to look too far to see how silly this can get. In truth, I don’t have to look at all, because university
press offices fill my inbox with examples every day: The Harvard scientists who hope their study of cuttlefish skin will
“inspire improved protective camouflage for soldiers on the battlefield.” The Berkeley team that thinks studying the
genetics of blubber-eating polar bears could help us learn to live with our bacon-wrapped, wide-load lifestyle. And
the wonderful folks at Nanyang Technological University, in Singapore, who believe “Squid sucker ring teeth material
could aid reconstructive surgery, serve as eco-packaging.” (And you thought they were good only for calamari.)

Use the passage linked below to answer the question.



Reprinted by permission of author Richard Conniff

"Useless Creatures"


In the last paragraph, the author argues that trying to convince people to care about animals because animals are useful can get silly.
How does the author show that this argument is valid?


(1 point)

He includes examples of animals with humorous names.

He lists credible sources.

He lists several strange real-life examples.

He includes a funny personal observation.

Answer 1

He lists several strange real-life examples.