Wild animals have no use in the 21st century and trying to preserve animals now is just a waste of money. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Some people believe that there is no need to save wild

animals

because they serve no purpose in modern life. In

this

essay, I seek to argue that I totally disagree with

this

point of view.

Although

extremely large amounts of money are being spent by governments and environmental organizations to save endangered

species

, I still believe wildlife deserves

this

for its crucial role in human life and the natural environment. For the natural environment, wildlife plays an immeasurable power of impact on maintaining eco-balance. When people allow endangered

species

to die out, it means that they are taken out of the food chain, forcing

animals

that eat the newly-extinct

species

to find new food sources to live on.

Moreover

, if a predator becomes extinct, populations of its prey can proliferate, resulting in dramatic changes in the balance in nature. Yellowstone Park is a case in point. The disappearance of wolves in

this

park leads herbivores

such

as elk to thrive, resulting in the destruction of many plant

species

, soil erosion and various other effects. For human life, many types of

animals

or plants are food sources, some

animals

even act as a buffer against diseases. Over the past few decades, there have been a number of medical breakthroughs using animal experimentation, which has saved millions of lives.

For example

, according to some surveys, the measles vaccine, which has been developed using animal testing, has saved over 20 million people since 2000. Without them, new drugs are not tested at all and are tested on humans

first

, which could lead to devastating consequences. In conclusion,

although

preserving wild

animals

will be an unacceptable expense, it seems to me that it is necessary for humans to protect the environment and wildlife.