Some people believe that attempting to prevent animal species from going extinct is unnecessary because it is a natural process. In my opinion, I partly disagree with this statement for various reasons.
It is undeniable that animal extinction occurs naturally, so that there is no reason to prevent it. Firstly, some mass extinctions of reptiles caused by natural factors created the foundation for the development of other mammals, especially humanity. For example, T. rex was an apex predator in its ecosystem, and consequently they would prey on humanity. Therefore, the mass extinction allows humans to grow and expand their society. Secondly, conservation tends to put a heavy strain on the government’s finances. Costs for conservation, including food supplies, zookeepers, shelter, and so on, may accumulate gradually, which makes the government focus on investing instead of allocating resources to other industries, such as medical care and education.
On the other hand, preservation is meaningful even if it is due to environmental forces. Firstly, many endangered species are beneficial to humans. Vultures, for example, avoid exacerbating environmental pollution due to methane release by removing carcasses. As a result, the number of Vultures in India decreased significantly because they ingested used treatment drugs in the dead bodies of sick cows, leading to an exacerbation of pollutant levels. Moreover, some animal species’ loss leads to the decline in other species. For example, the decline in coral reefs, which is caused by human activity, has contributed to the loss of habitat for other small marine creatures and thus coral reefs should be conserved.
In conclusion, although the natural process discourages people from interfering in conservation, I partly disagree that humans do not take responsibility for it because of its helpfulness and its potential to cause ecological imbalance.