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?

Nature

is a place for all species including humans,

animals

and plants. Some people believe that saving

animals

in

this

century results in throwing away

resources

, whereas the

next

half disagree with it. I strongly disagree with

this

statement and

this

essay will discuss it with relevant examples. There is a rhythm in

nature

which is the balance of all living and non-living substances. It is evident that disturbing the creation of the universe paved the way for many natural calamities during the past 10 years.

For instance

, the destruction of trees lead to the extinction of many

animals

and birds, which indeed caused drastic changes in the climate conditions.

Also

, there is no doubt that

nature

has its own

resources

and places for

animals

to exist and thrive.

Additionally

, it is necessary to save the forests if humans need a pleasing climate to live in.

This

brings us to my

next

point, forests are the natural nests for wild

animals

and

hence

preserving them would be the same as saving

animals

.

For example

, people cannot survive without water and for ,that they need rainfall, which can only happen if there are enough trees and forests. If the global population can keep

nature

as it is

then

there would no longer be a need for creating

resources

for

animals

to live.

Thus

, the very existence of humans depends on the existence of all other creatures on the earth including wild

animals

. To conclude, it is not only enough to protect

animals

rather it's the core base for having future generations a space on the earth.

Hence

, I strongly support the fact that protecting

animals

is equal to protecting the world and it's never a waste of any

resources

.