Should we ensure the survival of only those species that are beneficial for humans? I find this to be entirely logical, considering its outcomes pertaining to mitigated expenses as well as heightened obligation.
The principal benefit of protecting only selected animal species can be attributed to its contribution in saving a significant amount of money. Since the minimization of extinction involves a heavy cost in terms of research and execution processes, and this demands a significant allocation of the government’s budget. For instance, expenses associated with the upkeep of animals, along with offering a suitable environment, are usually greater. However, the saved money generated as a result of limiting conservation efforts towards certain species would foster the development of other crucial sectors of the economy, such as health and education. Consequently, this would enable a more efficacious utilization of money instead of devoting a plethora of dollars to wildlife protection.
Besides diminishing the expenditure on the government’s part, the conservation of human-use species would lead to enhanced responsibility. Because it is the tendency of humans to pay the required attention only to the events of their personal interest, this would call for stringent and responsible actions in order to ensure the existence of animals for the purpose of fulfilling their own needs. This, in turn, would not only result in the proper maintenance of such specific species but also arouse a sense of obligation in citizens.
To recapitulate, owing to the benefits related to decreased costs, along with making individuals realize their duty towards animals, I am strongly convinced that the focus needs to be placed only on those species that are of critical significance to humankind.