Animals are at risk of extinction. Some people believe that we should only protect those species that are useful to us. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some contemporary theorists are aligned with a view that since several animals are on the verge of disappearing, efforts and resources must be invested into saving only the economically viable. I fail to subscribe to this proposal in absolute terms, for this will prove to be a recipe for disaster.
To start with, a lobby proposes just focussing on a few species, the governments can save money. This is to say, this will allow more monetary resources for investments into domains that can benefit humans. To corroborate, the money can be utilised in critical sectors: education, healthcare and many more, for the betterment and upliftment of the society.
However, some strongly resist this and assert that this practice is biased and unethical. Every animal is imperative for ecological balance, and needs unconditional protection, and disrupting this delicate balance will expose humanity to catastrophic outcomes: turning the environment into inhospitable. For example, China witnessed a man-made famine during the 1960s, where the crops were ravished by insects. The contemporary regime ordered elimination of sparrows - the natural predator of local pests - thinking these were enemies of farmers, galvanizing a stupendous increment in the pest population.
Moreover, the threat facing animals has been engendered by human activities: poaching, and hunting. Thus, if only selected animals are afforded safeguards, the rest will become vulnerable to such cruel acts - and cause an imbalance in the food chain - in the future since it is human nature to exploit the unprotected.
In conclusion, disputes aside, one cannot be half pregnant, and only safeguarding animals essential for mankind will jeopardize the balance of nature, and eventually predispose humans to dire consequences. Moreover, selfishness has led to such circumstances, and panacea lies in conserving every living being for the larger good of the planet.
