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 protect wild animals because we as human 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 the Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there are nothing special means that we as human have a 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 destroy or exploit every

last

square meter of land in order to feed or accommodate the world's population. There is a plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild

species

.

Moreover

, I

also

disagree with the idea that protecting wild

species

is a waste of resources. It is critical to protect the natural habitats that ensures the survival of animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are

also

crucial for human survival.

For example

, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the Earth's climate. If we destroyed these areas, the cost of managing the result changes to our plant would far overweigh the cost of conservation. By protecting 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 as much as possible to protect the endangered

species

.