It is true that many animals are on the brink of extinction. Some opine that it is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take action against this issue while others believe that societal issues related to human beings should be more prioritized than those concerning species. This essay would discuss both viewpoints and argue for the former.
On the one hand, some advocate for emphasis on other societal issues rather than animal extinction because those issues are more urgent and pressing. In many developing countries, people still face extreme poverty, inadequate access to health care and education. Governments are under financial constraints to subsidize their population’s basic needs.
On the other hand, I strongly subscribe to the idea that governments and individuals should take actions to preserve endangered animals because this is also to safeguard our lives. As animals play a vital role in our ecological chain, the extinction of an animal in this chain could trigger a series of detrimental effects to other species, including humans. In fact, as predators reduce in population size, their prey species would more likely to increase and in some cases, this pose a threat to human well-being. For example, the reduction in population of predators like owls or snakes can be attributed to the overpopulation of rats which causes a serious spread disease – plague. In other cases, the extinction of some species would cause a huge loss in economic income. For instance, the decline in the number of sardines, a small prey species, could threaten commercially valuable species which eat sardines mainly for living like salmon.
In conclusion, animal conservation is not only to help prevent animal extinction, but it is also to protect human life from health diseases and economic loss. Therefore, it should go along with other problems of human beings in national and individual efforts.