Many people believe that we should protect all wild animals while others believe we should just protect some of them. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It has been argued if preserving the entire fauna is vital to our ecosystem. Whilst some believe

this

caution takes an incredibly high investment, others consider that the extinction of one

species

would jeopardize the entire natural balance. In my point of view, maintaining the environment as it is, prevents us from possible consequences an unbalanced nature could bring.

Firstly

, by defending the protection of all animal

species

, humankind is preserving the food chain and,

consequently

, the integrity of the natural system.

For example

, if eventually frogs end up extinct, some kinds of snakes that only feed on frogs may disappear as well, which could result in the extinction of other

species

that depend on the existence of these snakes.

Therefore

, a hole in the

food

the part of the leg of a human being below the ankle joint

foot

of chain could create a snowball in the entire system and break the environmental balance, causing catastrophic results to the Earth.

Conversely

, some consider that fighting to preserve the whole fauna demands a considerable amount of resources, which could be used to solve other problems in society. As science keeps evolving, we are still discovering different types of animals.

Thus

, some people believe it is impossible to keep track and protect all of them. The argument used for those who keep

this

opinion is that the mother nature will adapt itself to these changes, as it has done in the past when human beings not even existed. In summary, even though the environment is capable of adapting, most endangered

species

are in

this

situation due to human behaviour.

Therefore

, I strongly believe it is our responsibility to take care of them and fix our mistakes.