Trying to save endangered animal species from extinction is a waste of valuable resources. Do you agree or disagree?
It has been known for some time that the issue of whether we should attempt to protect endangered species from extinction or not is always a contentious one. Some people believe that such animals serve no useful purposes and should be allowed to die out just as many others (including dinosaurs), while others think that it is not true. It is my belief that endangered animals species in fact should be preserved. The principal reasons for my view are as follows
First, it is vital to appreciate the importance of endangered animals in maintaining the balance of nature. Although there is much we do not know how ecosystems or biological communities function, we do know that no creature exists in isolation and that ecosystems are delicate arrangements where plants and animals all depends each other for survival. The removal of a single species can disrupt the balance, conceivably set off chain reaction affecting others by breaking the food chain and altering the habitat where they live. The impacts of these imbalances, though, are difficult to predict and frequently haunt us unexpected ways. Just as dingoes, Australia's top predators, they are classified as vermin as their appearance cause the loss of sheep. Dingoes even carry a bounty of AUD 20$ a head. It is because of this policy that the amount of dingoes decreased significantly over the time. Where dingoes had been exterminated, though, scientists found increased abundances of introduced red foxes and herbivores, while small native mammals and grasses were lost. Without a native predator, the kangaroo population exploded. They have become rivals of sheep, competing for water and grass. Consequently, kangaroos are now cursed more than dingoes. The extinction of a predator can cause plagues by allowing its prey multiply unchecked. Therefore, since ecological change constitutes potential risks to us and our environment, it is clearly our own interests to protect endangered species.
Despite the fact that extinction is part of natural order and that it does occur naturally, the accelerating decline of wild animals is less and less a result of natural events. Most dangers to wildlife are from habitat loss and degradation, environmental pollution, the introduction of exotic organisms, etc; all generally a direct result of human activities. One important example is that during the 3000 years of Ice Age period, all North America lost only about three species every 100 years while since the Pilgrims landed in 1620, more than 500 plants and animals have become extinct in North America alone. Aside from these, perhaps the strongest argument in favor of saving endangered species is that every creature has intrinsic value and a right to exist, even if they are not useful to us in any practical ways, they are needed to be preserved nevertheless.
In conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that preserving endangered species is our vital mission and worthwhile. Not only, do they help to maintain the balance of our ecological systems, but they have value in and of themselves; and given that the human activities cause damages to them, we need to make every possible effort to save them. Endangered means there is still time, but extinction is forever.
It has been known for some time that the The issue of whether we should attempt to protect endangered species from extinction or not is always a contentious one
The part I scrapped off sounds irrelevant ... It's better you align this sentence more with the topic :)The issue of whether we should protect endangered species from extinction or use those resources for another purpose is being debated for some time.
The principal reasons for my view are as followsThis sentence does not add much value, because the reader anyway expects you to tell him the reasons. You can leave this out and it would help you manage your time more efficiently.
First, it is vital to appreciate the importance of endangered animals in maintaining the balance of Good sentence and a good point. I suggest ''echo system'' in place of nature, though nature is also correct, because it is actually the balance in echo system that we are worried aboutGood body para where you support your reason with an example.... : )
natureecho system .
You are on right track and welcome back to EF!
Hope this time you are going stay with us for a longer time ; )
This is a wonderfully constructed essay. :)
I could not find much faults in it as it had been organized very well.
we do know that no creature exists in isolation and that ecosystems are delicate arrangements where plants and animals all depends each other for survival.we do know that no creature exists in isolation and that ecosystems are delicate arrangements where plants and animals all depend on one another for survival.
I too agree on preserving endangered species merely on the fact that all beings have a right to exist, but it must be understood that there is a limit of beings the planet can withstand. Preserving animals who have been endangered due to human activity is no doubt a responsibility, but the rest should be decided by nature. It may seem unkind, but trying to preserve each and every being might result a bigger chaos.
I really enjoyed reading your essay. :)