These days,some people think that , human inhabitants should be spent more money and time than wild animals presevation.I completely disagree with this statement.
I disagree with the statement that time and money shouldn’t spent on the protection of wild animals.Firstly, animals play a crucial role on providing natural services for human beings.To be more specific, wild animals contribute to human health by supporting ecosystems that provide clean air, water, and food, many medical discoveries and treatments are derived from studying wildlife and natural processes, biodiverse ecosystems can also help mitigate the spread of diseases by maintaining healthy populations of species that control pests and pathogens that can reduce disease and improve public health.Moreover,wild animals also provide the resource of production. Fisheries rely on balanced aquatic ecosystems, and agriculture depends on pollination and pest control services provided by wild animals which gained huge economic benefits.
On the other hand, I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans .There is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metres of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.
In conclusion,while there may be instances where funds for wildlife protection seem excessive, a comprehensive approach is necessary. Striking a balance between preserving our natural heritage and meeting human needs is key to building a sustainable and equitable future for both species.