Dear Editor, I suddenly stumbled on Jeremy Clarkson’s article, “Stuff the Tigers – Long live extinction” as it celebrates extinction and makes a mockery of the trade in tigers. I am writing this letter to show my disagreement on some of his ideas and points of view; also I am the person who likes those living creatures. I can easily understand that is hard to find a new theme and write an interesting article especially for our generation, but this article reached and passed all of the limits. It is really easy to see that author didn’t treat article as seriously as it needed to be treated; his use of sarcasm belittles and demeans what the majority of people find an important environmental issue. However, I wanted to point out that every single bit of the article is rude. Even the title is creating a negative tension. “Stuff” – this word makes reader think to stop caring about this issue and just fill the tigers with stuffing once dead. “Long live extinction” – these words tease the reader with contradiction, and makes them think that everything is going well and extinction is impossible. I think that the use of this language in the title shows that the author is trying to manipulate the reader by making them agree with him through humour. Mr. Clarkson is not showing the whole picture of the problem of extinction. The reader thinks that everything is going well, and people have time to change it. However the problem of extinction is serious, and people should think about it now, because in the future it will be too late. As it was written in the article, tigers provide business; example for it is “demand for illegal tiger parts is booming”. I can agree with the fact of people need money to feed families, clothes and shelter themselves to survive. But I want to argue with this statement and the easiest factor to tell is that it is just greed. As well Mr Clarkson admits and mentions in his phrase, its “illegal”, therefore wrong. Just because its profitable, does not make it right, it’s a murder. Lets say, for example groups that assassinate people for money. It is also profitable, but everyone agree that those actions are wrong and according to laws, they need to be punished, because it is illegal. So, there is no difference. Another factor, which I won’t forget to mention is that extinction, is a high price for little a gain. Life is priceless, especially when it comes to a large number of species. Money is not worth it.
Also author stated, “animals become extinct naturally like “the brontosaurus”. They died without human interference. His example of dinosaurs is ridiculous: an asteroid from space destroyed them! Also, we weren’t there so we couldn’t change anything. But tigers are alive. It is still worth fighting for an animal’s survival out of compassion for other life. I have to notice the fact, which proves that most extinctions have occurred because of human cruelty and dodo is one of the examples.
Mr Clarkson also wrote that we should only care for those who are in our social group. The author is trying to show that nothing bad will happen if one of the species will become extinct, and people will do nothing with that issue; he thinks that we should only protect other people like us. However, if the human race will not care about the Earth and creatures on it, a lack of supplies will ensue, because predators will kill all of the victims and other creatures that give us food. Also it will cause economic problems, because of lack of supplies the cost of products will increase and it will be difficult for people from low classes to buy a food. Starvation could happen, would Mr. Clarkson be so dismissive then?
All in all, I want to say that the extinction of tigers is a very important issue, and it may cause a big problem. I know that there are lots of other problems, but extinction of animals, not only tigers is not the least. The extinction of animals can be solved. The creation of organization such as “Green Peace”, new laws, punishments, etc. might solve these problems. Preserves and zoos are other ways in which people can protect species from extinction.
From the point of view of the reader, the article is very effectively written, but Mr. Clarkson should think about disadvantages of the extinction. I think “The Sunday Times” should think about the opposition of Jeremy Clarkson’s article, put the article about the results, if species become extinct. Everything depends on people. Our race is young, and there lots of thing that we need to learn. We have to remember that the intelligence and character are the aspects of true life education.

Sincerely, Maria Golubkova