It is natural that some animal species are becoming extinct. There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening. Do you agree or disagree?

It is contended by many that the extermination of certain wildlife species is an inevitable part of natural selection and occurs even in the absence of human interference. From a general perspective, the thesis above is antagonistic toward my philosophy of life, howsoever my orientation has also gravitated slightly toward some specific aspects in which annihilation still happens, even without the mankind factor. To demonstrate the objectionable attitude to the aforementioned problem, there are two undisputed reasons. To begin with, the progressive expansion of human territory, especially for cultivation and habitation has resulted in the loss of animal habitat. This can be easily exemplified by pictures of polar bears struggling in some small icebergs instead of the giant frozen lands, or wild birds being threatened and staying away from the forest when humans cut and burn down trees. Furthermore, hunting, poaching, and killing various species for fun or private benefits drive them to the verge of extinction. For instance, rhino horns, alligator skin, or animal fur are being illegally stolen and become products that satisfy humans. Therefore, it is imperative humans assume the responsibility for reversing the situation and overcome the consequences. Nevertheless, in the event of a no-human world, the disappearance of animal species will still have happened for granted. First, outside factors such as solar waves and meteorites or natural disasters like tsunami, earthquakes, or volcano eruptions will be regarded as main influences on wildlife. This can be elucidated by the “Big Five” representing for five biggest natural extinctions in history that were caused by global warming, lacking oxygen, and volcano eruption putting an end to dinosaurs, mammals, and even some flora species. What’s more, from the point of view of animal behavior and physiology, no researches can prove that all animal species all take part in mating. Undoubtedly, mating is beyond the control of any factors, and sometimes the extermination of some species occurs naturally which depends on the animal interest. But no matter what or who causes the problem, the efforts expended to save animal species are part of our duties, which may somehow change the course of nature. For example, keeping creature in zoos can shelter them against possible threats such as scarcity of foods or other predators which they are likely to confront in the wilderness. With better protection and more zoo-based awareness-raising activities, the public can be aware of the gravity of the situation and together join hands to preserve animal species, especially rare and endangered ones. Therefore, without aggressive global interventions, future generations would only see them in encyclopedias, as is the case of dinosaurs. After weighing up both sides of the argument, I strongly believe that the elimination of animal species be called “natural selection” or “human interference” is contingent on our resolute actions which offer potential improvement and create a world of “Eco” not “ego” remains everlasting.