Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because humans do not need 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 instance, 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
humans do not need 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 instance
, 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.