Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Wildlife has been and ought to be the highest priority whatever time is. Even though others hold the opposite opinion to this, asserting that these animals had better not be secured so as not to squander resources, I completely disagree with this. Symbolizing a core of food, sufficient medicine and clothes, with the ecosystem maintenance are the two cogent reasons for this. There will be a discussion of these in the upcoming paragraphs accordingly. Fauna is the mainstay of human lives. ​One justification for this is​ a special healthcare provision, which enables people to survive; testing drugs on animals, as well as obtaining food from them are the presents taken for granted. ​Furthermore​, dressing the warmest clothing made out of animal skin in winter to keep people safe will not be substituted by any artificial fibres​, for instance, down the road. ​A further factor to justify​ preserving wild creatures ​is to​ sustain a balance in nature. ​The clearest indication of this is that​ they do play a crucial part in ​the natural cycle​. Provided that animals were not fed with valuable resources, and, eventually, became extinct, the natural world harmony would be disrupted, ​taking a heavy toll on ​human beings too. ​Thus​, the probable hazard should be omitted. In conclusion, ​livestock ​is not worth such a hostile attitude. As a great deal of basic need for living ​coupled with​ ​the natural system​ is provided, I tend to disagree with those who are to treat them as trivial in this era. I think that this, conversely, should be taken seriously by the current generation to ​undertake a new enterprise​ concerning the way creatures are defended if that seems to be misused.