Some people are of the opinion that all animals deserve protection, while others believe that there is only a limited number of animals needing the prioritized attention. As both schools of thoughts hold merit, I agree with both of these perspectives.
On the one hand, there are numerous reasons why people believe that the preservation of human beings should cover all kinds of animals. In this day and age, the increase of population sizes necessitates the huge demand for the food causing the severe destruction to the living habitat caused by the agricultural exploitation. Thus, our ecosystem is an entangled web of species, eventually the food chains can be adversely impacted, bringing about the possibility of starvation and lower production, threatening not only their survival but also the proliferation of the entire society.
On the other hand, opponents of the latter point of view think that the conservation should be confined to a small number of animals. The preservation of wild animals involves the engagement of scientists using advanced machines and intensive contribution of labour. Hence, it is undeniable that the conservation of one kind of animal is exorbitant causing financial strains on any party involved. This is why some individuals consider that we should have a system measuring and assessing the level of endangerment of wild animals to divert the resources to the most urgent one.
In conclusion, although there are mixed thoughts of whether or not to protect wild animals, I firmly believe that striking a balance is the optimal approach. While urgently endangered animals should receive the utmost attention, others living naturally in their habitats should not receive too much attention which leads to the waste of time and money.