Some people argue that too much attention and too many resources are given to protect wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree?
There is a body of opinion that the protection of wild creatures is receiving excessively great attention and resources. I completely disagree with that point of view.
It seems to me that the millions of dollars which have been poured into preserving wildlife are not enough; lots of wild animals and birds are yet on the brink of extinction. A recent study estimated that species are being wiped out a thousand times faster than they used to be, and humans are held responsible for that. Taking rhinoceros as an example, thousands of rhinos are being poached every year due to the high demand for rhino horns in some Asian countries regardless of intensive conservation efforts. Large numbers of certain species, in my opinion, would die out if people did not actively address wildlife protection; the delicate balance of the ecosystem then will be severely affected. In that case, the costs of dealing with future damage would far outweigh the costs of preserving wild creatures.
It is worth giving money and numerous resources for protection. Firstly, the conservation of natural habitats, which is very vital to ensure the survival of wild species, will greatly benefit humankind. Forests, for instance, help keep the watershed fresh, reduce the global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide, and provide the oxygen we breathe. Besides, animals play an essential part in maintaining the food chain as well as the entire ecosystem. From an economic perspective, wildlife conservation also brings substantial benefits which are from ecotourism such as safari tours to local livelihoods that are reliant on forestry. Hence, I suppose preserving wildlife is significantly a wise investment.
In conclusion, I support the idea that we should do as much as possible to protect wild animals and birds. (290 words)
-Nhỏ-
Comments
Post a Comment