Some people claim that too much focus and resources have been spent to protect wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many today would argue that there is undue emphasis on the safeguarding of various species of wild

animals

and birds. In my opinion, though there are legitimate practical objections, it is

a

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

positive overall given the potential impact of abandoning

such

efforts. Opponents of current conservation initiatives argue they are an unnecessary waste of valuable resources. The natural development of ecosystems involves

animals

going extinct and fighting for survival. Human intervention can

therefore

be seen as unnatural to a certain degree as

animals

that adapt will flourish and others will become obsolete. Added to

this

is the economic burden. The majority of endangered

animals

are in developing nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. National governments in these countries have a variety of other concerns related to healthcare, education, employment, and so on that take precedence over animal populations.

However

, humans should protect

animals

as their disappearance is irreversible. The issue of responsibility is not, to my mind, a compelling enough argument as blame can be assigned in a number of directions and is too self-righteous to be persuasive.

Instead

, it can be argued that permanent damage to the Earth will impact future generations. The Earth depends on biodiversity not only for the development of new medicines and the functioning of a healthy food chain but

also

in order to showcase its varied expressions of life. As the only known home to life in the universe, it would be short-sighted to eliminate species of

animals

and damage

this

reputation. In conclusion, despite the financial cost, it is essential to protect wild

animals

which may go extinct. Governments must sometimes prioritize the future over short-term considerations.