Animal is real substantial element for human beings. Over recent years, more funds have been allocated to save the threatened animals, although some people claim that only of those give advantageous to human life. Therefore, I argue that only beneficial animal should be considered to be saved.
To support that agreement, several explanations have been gained. First and foremost, saving all the world's endangered animal will cost a great amount of money. In other side, many people are starving or suffering hazardous disease in many parts of world that need to support by expenditure. According to news from The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the study in 2012 envisaged that preserving threatened land animals would cost $76 billion or around £49 billion a year, while it would cost more if our targets are entire marine species. Moreover, it is a fact that extinction is a natural process. Before human existed in the earth, several mass extinctions had occurred. The viable example can be seen from the extinction of dinosaurs. It is estimated that around 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs vanished without any intervention from human.
However, some people disagree about that statement. They argue that the most obvious reason is about ecological value. In human-social science, we learn that human is social creature. As like human, individual plant and animal cannot live by itself. Each animal depends on other animal or plant, and vice versa. One animal or plant extinction can disturb other organisms that interact with it. For instance, based on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the disappearance of one plant or animal can tend to the vanishment of 30 other creatures.
To sum up, it is evident that saving endangered animals cost a great amount of money. Although some people think preserving all threatened animals is a must, it is proofed that only animal which can give beneficial to human life should be saved.
Animal
is real substantial element for
human
beings. Over recent years, more funds have
been allocated
to save the threatened
animals
, although
some
people
claim that
only
of those give advantageous to
human
life.
Therefore
, I argue that
only
beneficial
animal
should
be considered
to
be saved
.
To support that agreement, several explanations have
been gained
.
First
and foremost, saving all the world's endangered
animal
will
cost
a great amount of money. In
other
side,
many
people
are starving or suffering hazardous disease in
many
parts of world that need to support by expenditure. According to news from The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the study in 2012 envisaged that preserving threatened land
animals
would
cost
$76 billion or around £49 billion a year, while it would
cost
more if our targets are entire marine species.
Moreover
, it is a fact that
extinction
is a natural process.
Before
human
existed in the earth, several mass
extinctions
had occurred. The viable example can be
seen
from the
extinction
of dinosaurs. It
is estimated
that around 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs vanished without any intervention from human.
However
,
some
people
disagree about that statement. They argue that the most obvious reason is about ecological value. In human-social science, we learn that
human
is social creature. As like
human
, individual
plant
and
animal
cannot
live
by itself. Each
animal
depends on
other
animal
or
plant
, and vice versa. One
animal
or
plant
extinction
can disturb
other
organisms that interact with it.
For instance
, based on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the disappearance of one
plant
or
animal
can tend to the
vanishment
of 30
other
creatures.
To sum up, it is evident that saving endangered
animals
cost
a great amount of money. Although
some
people
think
preserving all threatened
animals
is a
must
, it
is proofed
that
only
animal
which can give beneficial to
human
life should
be saved
.