ReadingMany environmentalists support the current system of laws that works to save all species that may become extinct. They claim that the current variety of organisms that exist on Earth must be preserved. This idea has long been held as our moral and v.2

The articles claims that safeguarding of endangered species is unnatural and poses many drawbacks and provides three reasons of support. The professor explains that the extinction should be prevented whenever it is possible. He states that loss of any species may have negative consequences and he refutes each of author' s reasons. First, the reading avers that the extinction cannot cause ecological disaster. The professor contends that the reading states that dinosaurs' extinction had no harm but it fails to explain that the extinction caused a dramatic shift on the Earth' s surface when there was no human on Earth. However, these days humans live on Earth and we are the people who wish to preserve the Earth so we must realize that each change can threat our existence. Second, the article posits that with advent of technology, there is no need to use nature as a source of inspiration for medications. The professor refutes the statement by saying that 40% of prescribed medicines are made of natural products, considering the small amount of these natural sources being studied. He explains that 100 species are estimated to be lost which means scientists lose the opportunity to make medicine from those species, forever. Third, the reading claims that the huge cost of saving species is not justified. The lecturer opposes this point by metioning that losing species has significant effect on the economy. He provides an example of fresh water muscle species which are in danger of distinction. He illustrates the point by saying that helping species to survive would keep the thriving industry and adds jobs to the society. He concludes that remaining species deserve to be saved if they have financial benefits.