Many people are convinced that all animals must be preserved, while others consider that not every living creature deserves a right for protection. In my view, humanity should aim the balance on the planet, keeping alive all the animals, regardless of the straightforward benefits that only some of them provide. Every creature plays a role in the ecological chain, and if some species disappeared, it would have a detrimental impact on the balance of nature.
Those who favor partial protection claim that it is a waste to invest territories and resources in animals, which provide them no financial profit. Indeed, some of the animals such as koalas or pandas require a lot of attention and care, and have very little economic and ecological impact in the world. However, this perspective is short-sighted, because it measures value only through human needs. If only some seemingly insignificant and useless species were removed, it would end up with catastrophic implications.
By contrast, proponents of ecological balance argue that despite financial challenges all preserving creatures must be protected from extinction. Every creature on the planet plays essential role in biodiversity chain. This interconnectedness shows that disappearance of even least important species can trigger domino effect, leading to the collapse of larger ecosystems. For instance, the loss of specific insect, that acts as a pollinator may result in vanishing of several plant species, which will cause extinction of those which depend on them.
In conclusion, while preserving only some irreplaceable species can be financially beneficial, I believe that preserving all animals is essential for maintaining the balance of ecological system. Thus, protecting all animals is necessary to maintain biodiversity and prevent the collapse of ecosystems.