It is becoming a commonplace that many animals are suffering the high risk of extinction. In modern society, many people believe that living beings should be rescued if only they are beneficial for humans. It seems to me that I disagree with this opinion because all animals play role in the interdependence of species within an ecosystem and it is morally wrong to separate into useful and useless groups.
A compelling argument can made be that all animals have an effect to each other. It is widely recognized that there is an ecosystem between all the animals. By letting one specie extinct, the other creature may also suffer consequences, as the delicate balance of the ecosystem is disrupted. For instance, when wolves disappeared from an ecosystem, deer populations grew too large and overgrazed plants, harming many other species. This shows how the extinction of one animal can disrupt the entire ecosystem.
Moreover, this kind of decision is getting out of generally accepted morals. By letting society to decide which animal deserve to be saved or which do not humans place themselves above nature and assume authority over life and extinction. Consequently, this raises concerns about responsibility and fairness. A food example would be that protecting only animals that are useful as food, such as cows or chickens, while allowing the extinction of species that do not directly benefit humans shows how moral decisions are based on human advantage rather than the value of life itself.
To conclude, it is reasonable to assert that deciding which living being deserved to live is harming an entire ecological balance and do not fit into human morals and values