There are many animal species close to endangered. Some say that only animals that are beneficial to people should be protected. Do you agree or disagree?
Answer:
Animal is real substantial element for human beings. Over recent years, more funds have been allocated to save the threatened animals, although some people claim that only of those give advantageous to human life. Therefore, I argue that only beneficial animal should be considered to be saved.
To support that agreement, several explanations have been gained. First and foremost, saving all the world's endangered animal will cost a great amount of money. In other side, many people are starving or suffering hazardous disease in many parts of world that need to support by expenditure. According to news from The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the study in 2012 envisaged that preserving threatened land animals would cost $76 billion or around £49 billion a year, while it would cost more if our targets are entire marine species. Moreover, it is a fact that extinction is a natural process. Before human existed in the earth, several mass extinctions had occurred. The viable example can be seen from the extinction of dinosaurs. It is estimated that around 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs vanished without any intervention from human.
However, some people disagree about that statement. They argue that the most obvious reason is about ecological value. In human-social science, we learn that human is social creature. As like human, individual plant and animal cannot live by itself. Each animal depends on other animal or plant, and vice versa. One animal or plant extinction can disturb other organisms that interact with it. For instance, based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the disappearance of one plant or animal can tend to the vanishment of 30 other creatures.
To sum up, it is evident that saving endangered animals cost a great amount of money. Although some people think preserving all threatened animals is a must, it is proofed that only animal which can give beneficial to human life should be saved.
Answer:
Animal is real substantial element for human beings. Over recent years, more funds have been allocated to save the threatened animals, although some people claim that only of those give advantageous to human life. Therefore, I argue that only beneficial animal should be considered to be saved.
To support that agreement, several explanations have been gained. First and foremost, saving all the world's endangered animal will cost a great amount of money. In other side, many people are starving or suffering hazardous disease in many parts of world that need to support by expenditure. According to news from The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the study in 2012 envisaged that preserving threatened land animals would cost $76 billion or around £49 billion a year, while it would cost more if our targets are entire marine species. Moreover, it is a fact that extinction is a natural process. Before human existed in the earth, several mass extinctions had occurred. The viable example can be seen from the extinction of dinosaurs. It is estimated that around 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs vanished without any intervention from human.
However, some people disagree about that statement. They argue that the most obvious reason is about ecological value. In human-social science, we learn that human is social creature. As like human, individual plant and animal cannot live by itself. Each animal depends on other animal or plant, and vice versa. One animal or plant extinction can disturb other organisms that interact with it. For instance, based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the disappearance of one plant or animal can tend to the vanishment of 30 other creatures.
To sum up, it is evident that saving endangered animals cost a great amount of money. Although some people think preserving all threatened animals is a must, it is proofed that only animal which can give beneficial to human life should be saved.
Do You Need