Your feedback means a lot to me🙏
Question :
Many people believe that we should protect all wild animals while others believe we should just protect some of them.
Although some community supports that all wild animals should be preserved as to broaden human's knowledge, others argue not to preserve certain ones posing threat to humans.
The proposition might claim that the protection of all wild animals could strengthen human's knowledge about the lives of such animals. This happens when all wild animals exist, human could understand each of this species' behaviour and the interaction to their kin, in which they can eventually exploit that insight to solve people's problems. A lion, the beast wild animals living in Forest, very often successfully catches their prey by working in a group, for example. Such behaviour could teach human about the advantage of solving problem together when being confronted with complex issue. Therefore, through conservation area, all of these wild animals could sustain their lives.
However, the opposite would argue that society should exclude certain wild animals, posing threat to human's lives. That is to say that, unlike the species of wild herbivore having no interest to injure human or sometimes avoiding people to save their lives, the wild beast such as tiger considers human as their prey and potentially kill them due to its nature as a carnivore. Eventually, society would live under the fear of unwanted attack from such animals. A Local News in India reported that the male tiger from deep forest, entering the small village at night, killed the boy. Such incident occurred when the boy walked and suddenly the tiger pounced this boy from behind. Thus, there would be no use of protecting such animals due to its threat to human.
In conclusion, I think that preserving all wild animals would be necessary, since there will be much useful insight being discovered once people study about their lives. However, society could improve the protection system to avoid such wild animal attack.
Question :
Many people believe that we should protect all wild animals while others believe we should just protect some of them.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Although some community supports that all wild animals should be preserved as to broaden human's knowledge, others argue not to preserve certain ones posing threat to humans.
The proposition might claim that the protection of all wild animals could strengthen human's knowledge about the lives of such animals. This happens when all wild animals exist, human could understand each of this species' behaviour and the interaction to their kin, in which they can eventually exploit that insight to solve people's problems. A lion, the beast wild animals living in Forest, very often successfully catches their prey by working in a group, for example. Such behaviour could teach human about the advantage of solving problem together when being confronted with complex issue. Therefore, through conservation area, all of these wild animals could sustain their lives.
However, the opposite would argue that society should exclude certain wild animals, posing threat to human's lives. That is to say that, unlike the species of wild herbivore having no interest to injure human or sometimes avoiding people to save their lives, the wild beast such as tiger considers human as their prey and potentially kill them due to its nature as a carnivore. Eventually, society would live under the fear of unwanted attack from such animals. A Local News in India reported that the male tiger from deep forest, entering the small village at night, killed the boy. Such incident occurred when the boy walked and suddenly the tiger pounced this boy from behind. Thus, there would be no use of protecting such animals due to its threat to human.
In conclusion, I think that preserving all wild animals would be necessary, since there will be much useful insight being discovered once people study about their lives. However, society could improve the protection system to avoid such wild animal attack.