I would argue how the utterances exhibited in the topic fail to be quantifiable and how unreasonable it is to exaggerate the extent of the focus and aid we have given in protecting wild
animals
.
The expression made by the topic might be an overgeneralization. Before assessing whether we have focused or invested too much in saving wild
animals
, one should first provide a set of criteria to have a sense of distinction.
However
, the vagueness of the claim leaves us the confusion. How much attention involved in saving wild
animals
can be considered "too much"? The extent is certainly unquantifiable. Even if awareness has it that sometimes we are over-panic about the species extinction as it is generally a natural procedure, and
animals
always die out
due to
the lack of environmental compatibility, the attention paid could be only considered higher than a normal amount rather than "too much".
Similarly
, we
also
lack a credible measurement to work out whether human beings have involved too many resources in saving wild
animals
, notably endangered ones. We are unaware of what the future would be if we didn't take steps to protect them, and to what extent
such
protection should be just right,
thus
without knowing whether what we have done would be too much to them.
Should there exist a standard for us to judge whether we are over-protecting some
animals
, in that case, what we are doing would still not be close to it. Generally, when one is over-protected by others, side effects emerge spontaneously;
that is
a universal methodology employed by our humans to evaluate the intervention given to the ecosystem.
However
, it is nearly impossible for us to provide any persuasive evidence to prove that the energy and efforts we have spared on wild
animals
have ever been counterproductive. The attention to wild species like the research centers set in the vicinity of their active zone hasn't interfered with their living. Any related resources provided to them, like the nature reserves, or the manual intervention in terms of their fertility and parenting have
also
proved no harm to them. The short-sighted, irresponsible saying noting that we are providing too much protection would be a total exaggeration and may preclude us from the liability that we humans, as the most rational being in the world, should establish to contribute to nature.
In conclusion, it is the vagueness of the opinion that compels me to question whether we are really doing too much in animal protection, and I certainly believe that every step we have taken is within rationality.