SEARCH YOUR ESSAY

Thursday, December 28, 2023

Many believe that it is important to protect all wild animals, while others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

Many believe that it is important to protect all wild animals, while others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Many believe that it is important to protect all wild animals


Protect all? Why 

  • Every animal is an integral part of ecological balance and thus humans must put efforts to protect all of them, it is their ethical responsibility  
  • **Absence of some animals may result in increase in the risk of disease and other problems 

Protect only some, why?

  • Many animals and birds have been able to adapt to the transforming environment for instance those surviving in urban environments and villages 
  • Some animals are in fact considered as pests and saving them could mean affecting society adversely  
  • Many animals that are rare and exotic  are nearing extinction and without human intervention they may completely disappear
  • **Many animals have been affected due to the human activities, and their disappearance could mean a disaster to nature and let loose several problems 

 

When it comes to protecting wild fauna, many have  a suggestion that efforts should be made to protect all the species. However, there is dissent on this issue as some feel that conservation programmes should include only certain types.

 A lobby of environmentalists is in favour of preserving each wild species that exists on this planet since it is the moral and ethical responsibility of humans since their interaction with the environment and their efforts to develop have resulted in destruction of several natural habitats, disturbing the life cycle of the poor wild beings and leaving them homeless. 

 Similarly, each living being is an integral part of the  ecosystem and enjoys a critical importance, and disappearance of any of these could prove to be catastrophic for society and expose humans to unprecedented dangers. To cite an example, mass extermination and disappearance of birds in the mid-sixties in China allowed the population of pests to flourish phenomenally. This resulted in extensive crop damage, leading to widespread famine that eventually led to death of thousands due to hunger. 

Nevertheless, the other section proposes focusing on conservation of only a selected species, for this section feels that it will amount to squandering of invaluable resources on preserving those, which have  learned  to adapt to the transforming surroundings such as monkeys, rodents and pigeons, to name a few. These creatures are found in abundant numbers in wild, rural and urban locales. The need of the hour is to safeguard the exotic wild beings that are nearing extinction and may die out without timely human  intervention.

Overall, despite both the views being true in their own virtue, I feel the latter view holds substance. Priority should be given to those beings that are on the brink of disappearing. 

            

 

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is considered very important. Why might this be the case? Is this a positive or negative development?

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is considered very important. Why might this be the case? Is this a positive or nega...