A highly controversial issue today relates to whether people need to guard all wild animals or selectively some of them. In this essay, I am going to examine this question from both points of view and then give my own opinion on the matter.
On one side of the argument, there are people who argue that the benefits of protecting all wild animals considerably outweigh its disadvantages. The main reason for believing this is that humanity already caused the death of plenty of wild animals, and animals are part of biosphere history on Earth. It is possible to say that animals can be a way to deliver historical information to future generations; moreover, the high activity of human progress led to the distinction of some wild animals, and people are responding to safety of the remaining animals. One good illustration of this are giant red pandas originally from China, who faced the distinction, but the Chinese government saved them by taking several restrictions related to illegal hunting.
Although, it is also possible to make the opposing case. It is often argued that in fact animals preservation requires a lot of expenditure. People often have this opinion because they think that they have other issues such as hungriness, poverty, and poor medical service. A second point is that people consider the above-mentioned problems should be tackled before taking protection measurements and it will be wiser to spend money on those problems.
In conclusion, I believe both arguments have their merits. On balance, however, I feel that animal protection should be done on a great scale and people need to treat all wild animals equally. This is because people will never know which animal will serve as a great example of history in the future.
A
highly
controversial issue
today
relates to whether
people
need to guard all wild
animals
or
selectively
some
of them. In this essay, I am going to examine this question from both points of view and then give my
own
opinion on the matter.
On one side of the argument, there are
people
who argue that the benefits of protecting all wild
animals
considerably
outweigh its disadvantages. The main reason for believing this is that humanity already caused the death of
plenty
of wild
animals
, and
animals
are part of biosphere history on Earth. It is possible to say that
animals
can be a way to deliver historical information to future generations;
moreover
, the high activity of human progress led to the distinction of
some
wild
animals
, and
people
are responding to safety of the remaining
animals
. One
good
illustration of this are giant red pandas
originally
from China, who faced the distinction,
but
the Chinese
government
saved them by taking several restrictions related to illegal hunting.
Although
, it is
also
possible to
make
the opposing case. It is
often
argued that in fact
animals
preservation requires
a lot of
expenditure.
People
often
have this opinion
because
they
think
that they have other issues such as hungriness, poverty, and poor medical service. A second point is that
people
consider the above-mentioned problems should
be tackled
before
taking protection measurements and it will be wiser to spend money on those problems.
In conclusion
, I believe both arguments have their merits. On balance,
however
, I feel that
animal
protection should
be done
on a great scale and
people
need to treat all wild
animals
equally
. This is
because
people
will never know which
animal
will serve as a great example of history in the future.