The protection of wildlife has become a frequent subject of debate with strong arguments for and against. Personally, I believe that humans are paying too much attention and allocating too many resources to this issue, as will now be explained.
Firstly, if we allow any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster. Some people may argue that the biology will be seriously affected if birds and wild animals are on the verge of extinction, but this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence suggests that the mass disappearance of the dinosaur did not cause any harm to other species on the Earth but merely triggered the emergence of others such as the mammal. Therefore, we should not devote too much attention to the protection of wildlife.
Secondly, public money is limited. This means that the national budget should be allocated to more urgent issues rather than expending too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds. For example, more resources should be diverted to medical research to find out remedies for fatal diseases such as HIV and cancer, which may help to save thousands of lives in society.
Finally, the government can simply protect wildlife by continuing campaigns to raise public awareness of the protection of wildlife habitats, or impose stricter punishments on activities that may harm wild animals. Any individual who hunts wildlife for food or for pleasure should be given a heavy fine, and this may discourage them from threatening the life of wild animals.
In conclusion, while I do not refute the argument for the conservation of wildlife, I believe that it should attract less attention and fewer resources from the public.
The protection of
wildlife
has become a frequent subject of debate with strong arguments for and against.
Personally
, I believe that humans are paying too much attention and allocating too
many
resources to this issue, as will
now
be
explained
.
Firstly
, if we
allow
any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster.
Some
people
may argue that the biology will be
seriously
affected
if birds and wild animals are on the verge of extinction,
but
this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence suggests that the mass disappearance of the dinosaur did not cause any harm to other species on the Earth
but
merely
triggered the emergence of others such as the mammal.
Therefore
, we should not devote too much attention to the protection of wildlife.
Secondly
, public money
is limited
. This means that the national budget should
be allocated
to more urgent issues
rather
than expending too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds.
For example
, more resources should
be diverted
to medical research to find out remedies for fatal diseases such as HIV and cancer, which may
help
to save thousands of
lives
in society.
Finally
, the
government
can
simply
protect
wildlife
by continuing campaigns to raise public awareness of the protection of
wildlife
habitats, or impose stricter punishments on activities that may harm wild animals. Any individual who hunts
wildlife
for food or for pleasure should be
given
a heavy fine, and this may discourage them from threatening the life of wild animals.
In conclusion
, while I do not refute the argument for the conservation of
wildlife
, I believe that it should attract less attention and fewer resources from the public.