Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection
of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely
disagree with this point of view.
In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the
21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit
of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that
means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the
extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason
why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy
every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the
world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side
with wild animals, and this should be our aim.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of
resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the
survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are
also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen,
absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed
these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet
would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals
and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.
In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals
should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect
them.
Some
people
argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection
of
wild
animals
because
we humans have no need for them. I
completely
disagree
with this point of view.
In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild
animals
have no place in the
21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists
only
for the
benefit
of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that
means that we
suddenly
have the right to
allow
or encourage the
extinction
of any species.
Furthermore
, there is no compelling reason
why
we should
let
animals
die
out. We do not need to exploit or
destroy
every last square
metre
of land in order to feed or accommodate the
world
’s population. There is
plenty
of room for us to exist side by
side
with
wild
animals
, and this should be our aim.
I
also
disagree with the
idea
that protecting
animals
is a waste of
resources
. It is
usually
the protection of natural habitats that ensures
the
survival of wild
animals
, and most scientists
agree
that these habitats are
also
crucial for human survival.
For example
, rainforests produce oxygen,
absorb carbon dioxide and
stabilise
the Earth’s climate. If we
destroyed
these areas, the costs of managing the resulting
changes
to our planet
would
far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild
animals
and
their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.
In conclusion
, we have no right to decide
whether or not
wild animals
should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect
them
.