Some argue that there is no point in spending money on wildlife protection because we humans have no need for them. I totally disagree with this view.

Some argue that there is no point in spending money on

wildlife

protection because we humans have no need for them. I totally disagree with

this

view. It seems to me absurd to agree that

wildlife

has no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that the Earth exists solely for the benefit of man, and there is nothing special about

this

particular century that means we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species

..

Replace the punctuation

.

...

show examples

​

Moreover

, there is no compelling reason why we should allow animals to die. We do not need to exploit or destroy every

last

square meter of land in order to feed or house the world's population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and that should be our aim. I

also

disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is typically the preservation of natural habitats that ensures the survival of

wildlife

, and most scientists agree that these habitats are

also

essential for the survival of humans.​​ Rainforests,

for example

, produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the planet's climate. If we destroy these areas, the cost of managing the resulting changes to our planet will considerably exceed the cost of conservation. By protecting

wildlife

and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth. In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether

wildlife

should exist or not, and I believe we should do everything we can to protect them.