Whilst, some believed that it is essential to guard all wildlife, others argue that only few are worth saving. This essay would examine both viewpoints before expressing its own opinion.
People that are of the notion of saving all wild animals are biodiversity-oriented. This is because, biodiversity is necessary for the wellbeing of the planet, in which the loss of animal can lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem. Furthermore, the imbalance contributes to climate change and even global warming, where the ozone layers cannot protect the planet. Additionally, it is moral imperative for Humans, the highest animal species to protect the lower species especially the endangered ones from extinction. Moreover, because, some of these animals are used for medical research and drug testings, it is our responsibility to ensure their continued breeding and existence. For instance, a recent study conducted by Professor Shooh Carty highlights uniformity of the planet, which is largely due to biodiversity.
Conversely, others argue that not all animals should be protected because its a costly endeavour. They contend that the cost of preparing a new conservation centre, after which wildlife experts, securities, and aircrafts are assembled for the transportation of endangered species of animals to their new habitats is expensive. In fact, they assert that the money should be used to improve medical facilities and invested into the educational system. Moreover, most of the animals are very dangerous, cannot be tamed and can be very harmful to their caregivers. For example, according to the United Kingdom Conservation annual meeting, it is estimated that £1.3 billion is needed to construct ten core conservation centres for endangered species in 2024.
In conclusion, while the topic of protecting all wildlife remain controversial, I agree that all wildlife should be saved because they promotes biodiversity and are useful in biomedical research against diseases affecting the society.