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