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?

It is claimed that protecting wild

animals

is vain and a waste of money and other resources since the current century does not need wild

animals

anymore. I firmly disagree with every single component of

this

idea. The wild have numerous plus points for the globe. In the

first

place, the function of the ecosystem correlates with all creatures’ lives, even the tiniest ones,

such

as vermin, let alone the wild

animals

.

Hence

, to maintain the environment, the wild should be preserved. It is worth mentioning that if some specific species become extinct, at

this

rate , we might face a serious shortage of nourishment sources .

For instance

, if lions become extinct, there would be a rise in the crocodiles’ population, which predates the fish . So, human beings face a lack of access to fish as an edible option.

Secondly

, benefiting from wild animal-related products has commenced centuries ago. And it has continued until now. As an example, a vast proportion of garment industries rely on the wild as some wild

animals

’ fur is applied in fashion. In my honest opinion, preserving wild

animals

is advantageous in several respects. Protecting the wild

animals

will definitely result in preserving the Earth.

In other words

, due to the developments of our fast-changing world, some wild species have been endangered. So, by protecting them by NGOs and policymakers, the standard balance would be brought back to the ecosystem and the world.

Furthermore

, as the number of wild species has economic benefits, protecting these

animals

can make a significant profit and increase fiscal budgets . Some

animals

which can be trained and performed in public are financially advantageous. To conclude, I believe that the 21st century is not needless for wild

animals

.

Moreover

, the policy of protecting the wild can be a money-maker.