There is a growing belief that human actions negatively impact a wide range of species. Many of them believe that it is pointless to do anything about this issue, while others contend that effective solutions can be taken into account to solve this situation.
In this essay, I am inclined to agree with the latter perspective as more compelling reasons supporting it outweigh the possible arguments for the former.
On one side of the debate, the second conviction appears to be reasonable largely because the protection of wild animals is less challenging with the rapid technological development. This is particularly true for the preservation of wildlife, in which advanced methods of genetic science will be used in the preservation of some rare animals and plants. As a result, the preservation of wildlife prevented the extinction of various engendered species. A further point to make is that many other solutions showed effectiveness. For example, raising people’s awareness about environmental protection through media such as TV and newspapers. Consequently, the conservation of wild creatures encourages people to take part in conservation projects in the future.
In spite of the mentioned arguments, I strongly support the second notion due to more convincing factors. Primarily, my stance is rooted in the fact that the protection of wild animals is a waste of time and money in some cases. This is particularly true for parts of the world where there is decreased biodiversity due to climate change resulting in extinction of animals. The implication of this is that putting many resources into conservation projects but they fail to save endangered species. Another reason behind my belief is that the protection of wild animals is too financially demaning. For instance, many countries have people living under the poverty line but governments do not have budgets to improve the situation. This subsequently leads to it is difficult to invest in conservation projects saving wildlife.
In conclusion, despite acknowledging the potential arguments in favour of the second viewpoint, there are overwhelming rationales to endorse the first one