A lot of animals are at risk of extinction. Some people think that only animals that are helpful to humans should be defended. I completely disagree with this idea because if only usefull animals be protected other animals will become extinct. If they become extinct the usefull animals which feed on other animals will also die. If we protect only helpful animals to us, it leads to decrease in people’s knowladge because nature and animals play an important role in medicine.
If we defend only usefull animals we might lose other animals, it might damage nature then the chain of nature will be broken, it would be a big problem then usefull animals might die after the chain of nature broken there are some animals which feed on meat , and others feed on trees and grasses. We might save the ones which feed on trees and grasses but it is difficult to save the ones which are feed on meat because to feed them we need a lot of meat, and then we have to slaughter them because there is no other variant to get meat because all animals which are usefull to us are herbivores.
Moreover, if our goal is protecting only helpfull animals to us, we might exprience a slowly decrease in our knowladge because nature and animals are part of a biologic book, they play an important role in medicine. Then science cannot do researchs on them because they have not any information about not usefull animals, and they cannot create vaccines to diseases because some animals blood or their poison may be a solution for some diseases. Most vaccines made from wild animals, for example nowadays science making vaccines from snakes’ poison.
In conclusion, a large number of animals are at risk of extinction. A number of people say just animals which are benefical to people should be defended. I completely disagree with this idea because if only usefull animals are protected it might causes a damage nature and the nature’s chain, and it leads to decrease in humans understanding because animals and nature play an necessary role in medicine.