A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research

It has become a controversial debate among those who believe the misuse of animals is against human ethics so excessive colonising of beasties should be banned and animals should be treated as same as mankind while others believe they are an integral part of biodiversity evolution as being and can be hunted by

further

creatures or humans in order to attain their needs or being experienced biologically by scientists.In

this

,essay we would have a deep looking at both views and

also

strongly support the letter's point of view by bringing evidence.

First

and foremost, exploiting brite from domestic to wild one is not fair and humanitarian

furthermore

,would be extremely destructive to wildlife or maybe lead to extinction in some species or imperil them. for ,instance hunting quadruples as herbivores without strict control could lead them to diminish meanwhile all terrestrials have the right of living whereas being hunted by nature is natural ,not by the men.

On the other hand

, there are opponents who believe that consuming grounding or shellfish in a justiciary manner,not only can play an important role in scientific development but

also

could novel attitude to food production

hence

providing a vast source of ingredients for society too. for ,example there are numerous committees that defend animal rights while applying patch tests in laboratories on them in order to provide healthy food sources for people or products cosmetics with fewer side effects. In conclusion, practising creatures in environmentally friendly methods could be constructive

thus

it could be executed rightfully

in contrast

to opponents who believe brute involved in food pyramid or scientific trials is brutal and should be banned totally.