A popular belief is that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because humans have no need for them. Personally, I am not the same this argument.

On the one hand, I do not accept the fact that existence of wildlife is meaningless for mankind‘s lives in the world as a whole. Firstly, these creatures definitely play an important role to balance the eco-system. The more stable natural system, the safer people’s lives. Greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms, and healthy ecosystem can better withstand and recover from a variety of disaster. By protecting wild animals and their living places, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

Firstly, these creatures definitely play an important role to balance the eco-system. Indeed, Greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms, and healthy ecosystem can better withstand and recover from a variety of disaster. Hence, by protecting wild animals and their living places, humans will have better lives.

Secondly, wildlife is also essential to natural research to discover nature in deeply with the aim of improvement biological knowledge. At the same time, I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resource. There is no doubt that the conservation of natural habitats not only ensures the survival of wild animals, but are also crucial for human existence. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the Earth’s climate. Additionally, the more mankind damages the nature, the more problem they face. Evidently, in these days, a lack of enough awareness of benefits of nature protection because of less/ lack of awareness of natural protection, the living of wild animals are shortened, resulting in serious problems of climate change such as floods and droughts occurred more regularly.

Consequently, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet will outweigh that of conservation to natural habitats. Good idea flow, very reasonable. But your expression sometimes show inexperience Taking everything into consideration, we have no right to let wild animals die out because protecting them is also the perfect way to prevent ourselves from natural damage.

There is an opinion saying that protecting wild animals is a waste of time and efforts since they are not necessary anymore in the 21st century. Personally, I disagree with this statement for reasons outlined below.

It is nonsense to say wild animals have no part in the 21st century since they always play an important role in the environment. Whether in the Stone Age, medieval age or modern age, animals, and plants have been living together and forming a balance in life that no humans can make. Plants give off oxygen and foods, while animals help plants grow and multiply. If we don’t protect wild animals well, most of them will go extinct due to overhunting, which will break the balance of nature and lead to many adverse consequences of deforestation, hurricane, and other terrible disasters.

It takes resources to protect wild animals, but their existence will bring other benefits to the nations that preserve/conserve them. Wildlife, zoos and preservation/conservation areas that allow tourists to visit would generate a large amount of income each year to the countries in charge while they can even take pride in themselves for having some of the rarest wild animals in the world, not to mention the environment protection along with it. In addition, most of the cost for protecting the wild animals is covered by various international funds all over the world, so having rare species is more of a blessing than a burden to a country.

In conclusion, wild animals deserve to live freely under protection of humans due to the significance/importance of their existence and the benefits they are bringing. We should do everything we can to protect them for the sake of ourselves and our future generations.

Some argue that today’s advancement has rendered wild animals redundant as we do no need to depend on them for a balanced living ecosystem, and hence we do not need to protect such animals. In my opinion, this self-righteous attitude would lead to potential threat to the lifecycle on earth. That said, I disagree with wasting excessive amount of resources to protect certain animals; human beings should always take priority.

Day in and day out, scientific findings are revealing the interdependence between earth’s living organisms. It is very dangerous to believe that we can survive by sacrificing any of the lives on earth, where they are humans, animals or plants.

For example, if cats were to suddenly become extinct, there is a high probability that there will be a sudden increase in the number of bugs that cats feed on. This may introduce new challenges for humans due to the potential viruses these bugs will spread or the agricultural damage they will cause. Moreover, recent research evidences show that some wild animals have skills that can complement our lives. For example, dogs can smell passengers to detect illegal items. Therefore, interfering with animals’ ecosystems will have adverse effects on the lives of all living beings on earth.

However, we need not invest excessively in protecting certain organisms. Instead, all we need to do is to remain vigilant of how our activities affect the existence of other creatures and if our activities are justified. For example, using animals to produce cosmetics, which also have long term negative effect on women’s skin, is obviously not a prudent move.

However, using mice to experiment new drugs is okay because it is contributing to saving human lives, which I believe is a priority.
In short, protecting all living creatures is essential, but humans take precedence over animals. Indeed, unnecessary interference in animal’s ecosystem may also affect humans in the long run.

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.