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

Nowadays, the question of whether preventing animals from losing their natural habitat is pointless owing to having no place in

this

century has been receiving a great deal of public attention.

Although

the idea of protecting them is a waste of sources appears plausible, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

First

, animals play an essential role in humans’ lives. Due to the fact that they help maintain the balance in nature, they could provide a sustainable environment for a man to live in.

Moreover

, animal species are crucial for the ecosystem and people need a healthier one for existence in a long term.

Second

, animal activities contribute to populating more plantations and diversity in biologies

such

as food, water, raw material and even medicine; which leads to the improvement of the quality of humans’ lives. A bird,

for instance

, in America could carry the seeds of a native tree from one region to another.

Thus

,

this

action can aid people in the development of the native one; which could reduce the bad effect caused by the industrial revolution.

Finally

, every animal has its own place in the food chain of every natural habitat; so without them, there will be serious impacts on the natural phenomena.

Besides

, all living organisms depend on each other for their survival.

For example

, snakes could improve the quality of fertile soil in farms when crawling through the soil bundles and they could

also

break them into the finest particles, which are ideal for the plantation. In conclusion, I advocate that protecting feral species is an important solution for the human future. By raising awareness of

this

idea, the government ought to encourage individuals to pay more attention to preventing animals from having nowhere to live.