Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wildlife because we

haumans

all of the living human inhabitants of the earth

humans

have no need for them. I completely disagree with

this

Linking Words

point of view. In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about

this

Linking Words

particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species.

Furthermore

Linking Words

, there is no persuasive reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to

expoilt

use or manipulate to one's advantage

exploit

export

or destroy every

last

Linking Words

square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and

this

Linking Words

should be our aim. I

also

Linking Words

disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are

also

Linking Words

crucial for human survival.

For example

Linking Words

, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the cost of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth. In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them.