Wild animals serve no purpose in the modern world and trying to save them is a waste of money. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the 21st century, wildlife preservation problems have been becoming necessarily significant, as many species are endangered due to urban sprawl and industrialization. Some people believe that wild

animals

are not compatible with modern society and that any effort to save them is futile.

However

,

this

statement suffers from logical and factual issues and I hardly agree with it.

To begin

with, there is no doubt that animal species play an important role in the ecosystem and a balanced one is desired for the human race to

last

longer. Animal activities contribute to the diversity of biology which quite possibly could influent our society.

For example

, many wild birds eat insects in farms and forests.

This

natural action helps protect crops and plants by preventing them from being damaged by pests.

Consequently

, it is apparent that the existence of wild

animals

has positive influences on the ecosystem which ultimately benefits humans.

Next

, a less obvious point is that

animals

in nature could bring certain advantages to the national economy. Currently, there is a growing interest in ecotourism in several counties as more people are concerned about getting into nature. Take China as an example, the extremely rare wild pandas in forests have attracted tourists from different countries around the world. As a consequence, more employment opportunities have been created and

thus

bring positive economic impacts to those countries.

Thus

, it can be demonstrated that

animals

could affect economic growth positively. To conclude, due to the aforementioned points, the claim that wild

animals

serve no purpose in today's society can be disproved and the evidence is more than overwhelming.

Therefore

, it is recommended that governments increase their budget on preserving wilderness areas as well as living species.