Many people feel it is a waste of money to try to save endangered animal species, for example the tiger or the blue whale. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It is often argued that with so much suffering in the human population these days, it is wrong to use up precious resources on

animals

. Taking the example of the tiger, proponents of

this

view say that to encourage tiger populations to increase in areas farmed by

humans

would be morally wrong because peoples’ livelihoods would be destroyed for the sake of an animal. The tigers will hunt livestock and, given the chance,

humans

as well.

In other words

, where there is competition between

humans

and

animals

in a given habitat, it is right that

humans

should win. The point is

also

made that, over millennia, certain

species

have disappeared while others have flourished, and that we should allow nature to take its course and let failing

species

die out. In fact, it is suggested that protecting vulnerable

species

damages the ecology of the earth because only the fittest should survive. I agree that human life is always of greater value than animal life.

However

, I feel that trying to save any creature from extinction enhances human existence

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

because our lives would be diminished if fascinating and beautiful creatures

such

as tigers or elephants were lost forever.

Furthermore

, being the most powerful creature on the planet means that we have a moral and ethical duty to care for weaker

species

.

Finally

, even less-appealing

animals

such

as insects and amphibians should be preserved, because maintaining different

species

promotes biodiversity. It is possible,

for example

, that scientists might be able to find products from these

animals

of benefit to

humans

,

such

as medicines or fertilisers. On balance, I feel that every effort should be made to save as many

species

as possible, for practical and moral as well as aesthetic reasons.