Many individuals suggest that protection should be restricted to useful animals for human needs. Personally, I totally disagree with this view for several explanation that would be represented in this essay.
On the one hand, it is true that the usefulness of some animals are obvious, while other ones may not be immediately visible. In nature, from a small to a big animal certainly plays a crucial role in direct or indirect ways such as pollination, preventing harmful pests, serving as a part of food chain. Therefore, it is not reasonable to measure animals’ value according to immediate human value. They are all in a part of connected system, keeping the ecosystem stable. Thus, the disappearance of one particular species may eventually lead to unwanted consequences, making the world weaker and simpler.
On the other hand, the marginalization of protection for endangered species, mainly due to human activities. Taking deforestation as example, this destroys habitats, a source of food, pushing natural systems beyond their limits. As a results of many catastrophic events damaged not only wildlife but also human benefits, leading to financial loss, life at risk. Furthermore, it is about moral reason, since it is too convenient to dismiss responsibility, while the primary driver of extinction is human activity. Despite providing all animals with equal urgence that is impossible; however, constraining only useful animals to immediate human benefits is unethical.
In conclusion, offering protection for animals on the basis of their usefulness is a shallow perspective. I completely disagree this view, as all living creatures have their own value and meaningfulness and they deserve protection.