Opinions are mixed regarding the different ways people protect wildlife. There has been an argument stated that all wild animals deserve protection; nonetheless, some still wonder whether the advantages of saving some particular species outweigh the advantages of saving all of them. I am in full support of this viewpoint and both sides of it will be critically evaluated before my final conclusion is drawn.
Firstly, each species has a spectacular value and plays a role in ecosystem balance. Protecting all animals ensures biodiversity, which is essential for ecosystem health and resilience. For instance, in the rainforest ecosystem, even small creatures such as insects contribute to pollination, growth plants for larger animals rely on. Secondly, protecting all of the wildlife could also help conserve animal genetic resources. Conserving animal genetic resources is essential for environmental sustainability, agricultural productivity, cultural preservation, and overall resilience in the face of global challenges.
In contrast, focusing on only a few species allows for more effective resource allocation, especially given budget constraints in conservation projects. Funds should prioritize endangered species with unique ecological roles, such as keystone species. A keystone species helps define an entire ecosystem. Without its keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. Moreover, preserving wildlife requires lots of steps and worksource, as a result, protecting all of them at the same time could lead to overwhelming. In addition, many creatures have been damaged heavily by humans so it becomes hard to recover.
In conclusion, protecting all of the species might have lots of advantages such as balancing biodiversity and conservation genetics. However, I believe that saving particular species is more relistics and could still balance biodiversity.