Topic: 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 wild

animals

because humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with

this

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

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

Furthermore

, there is no compelling reason why we should let

animals

die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every

last

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

should be our aim. I

also

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

crucial for human survival.

For example

, 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 costs 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.