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?

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. 

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion(in conclusion) and examples from your experience.

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion(in conclusion) and examples from your experience.

Wildlife conservation programs aim to preserve biodiversity, protect endangered species and maintain ecosystems, vital for the health of the planet. However, some argue that this might impact other areas, such as infrastructure or healthcare. Exploring both perspectives shed light on whether this focus is justified.

Protecting wildlife is essential for ecological stability. Biodiversity ensures that natural processes, such as pollination, seed dispersal and soil fertility, continue smoothly, benefiting agriculture and food security. For instance, species such as bees, butterflies, and certain birds play crucial roles in pollinating crops, which are integral to food production. Additionally, safeguarding endangered animals helps maintain a balanced food chain, contributing to environmental sustainability. Moreover, wildlife tourism, which is often supported by conservation initiatives, boosts economies by attracting visitors. National parks countries like Kenya and Costa Rica draw millions of tourists, generating revenues and creating employment for local communities. 

Similarly, conserving wild fauna must be complemented  with preserving the exotic flora since green cover acts  as habitats for the former. This indirectly benefits all forms of life by act as lungs of the planet by recycling the air, by virtue of absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen, and also regulating the temperature, and inviting precipitation.    

 Nevertheless,  opponents suggest that focusing on wildlife preservation can divert resources for more immediate societal needs, affecting the ability of nations to establish improved infrastructure, healthcare or education systems, which arguably affects daily lives more directly. For example, this emphasis is likely to hinder allocation of funds for advanced transportation networks to help mitigate traffic congestion, pollution, and enhance economic productivity.  

In conclusion, while this policy might affect other sectors, I believe that investing in wildlife protection remains vital; the long-term benefits of preserving ecosystems contribute significantly to sustaining the hospitable planet.  

 

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion(in conclusion) and examples from your experience.

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion(in conclusion) and examples from your experience.

 There is a paradigm shift while making investments, authorities prefer to spend money safeguarding fauna instead of fulfilling basic needs for human beings. This trend has several advantages and disadvantages associated with it and I will be discussing both in the following paragraphs.

 To start with, this shift in priorities is helping preserve delicate ecological balance, comprising various animals, and protecting the future of humans as a result. Undeniably, if this arrangement is disturbed, it will have a direct implication for society. For example, disappearance of honey bees is likely to result in the absence of the medium of pollinating fruit and vegetables, depriving mankind of food. Similarly, this is aiding in conservation of habitats of exotic fauna: the forests,  the premium climate regulators that help recycle the air, and also invite precipitation.  Moreover, forests are also considered a rich source of raw materials in terms of making medicines and performing scientific research, to name a few, and this emphasis is assisting humans in saving this invaluable resource.

However, there are humongous downsides of this approach as cited by skeptics: this might create hurdles in human development as diverting monetary resources from essential projects such as rendering fundamental amenities: food shelter and clothing;  and quality education, health care, and infrastructure, might exacerbate the problems facing marginalized communities. Many are struggling to access basic needs like clean water, food etc. and are surviving in the tents in all the weather conditions. Authorities are taking human beings lightly by depriving them of their basic needs.

 To sum up, I opine that safeguarding wildlife is important, but it should not come at the expense of putting people in danger. A balanced approach is necessary to protect the conservation and human needs.

In recent years, there has been a significant decline in the diversity of plant and animal species across numerous countries. What are the potential causes of this issue? How can we mitigate it?

In recent years, there has been a significant decline in the diversity of plant and animal species across numerous countries. What are the potential causes of this issue? How can we mitigate it?

Attributes of the problem 

• Denuding the planet is leading to habitat loss
• Industrial agriculture
• Industry set up
• Logging
• Creating housing and other activities
• Overexploitation and poaching
• Pollution and climate change

Panacea  

• Sustainable development policy: 
• use of green fuels/ ecofriendly farming techniques 
• Recycling 
• Strong environmental laws 
• Espousing innovative methods: vertical farming/ cities 
• Earmaking areas for wildlife and circumscribing any human intervention there 
• Proscribing poaching and sale of banned animal parts, and using punitive methods to discourage such acts 
• Create awareness among people about the ramifications of such a loss  

The shrinking variety of flora and fauna has become a pressing concern for contemporary society. This can be attributed to several reasons, making it imperative to discover plausible mechanisms to surmount this jeopardizing challenge.

This catastrophic trend majorly is driven by the greed for economic progress, precipitating reckless abuse of nature - denuding of the planet to accommodate farming, factories, residential areas, and amenities, among others - and consequently, destroying micro-habitats and food chains. This disrupts local ecologies, causing disappearance of endemic plants and animals, and invasion by pioneer species of both. To corroborate, Amazon is a prominent example of this pattern, where indiscriminate deforestation is being carried in the name of development, which is pushing exotic plants and wildlife into extinction, only to be replaced by artificially-introduced species.

Moreover, the indiscriminate use of chemically-synthesized fertilizers and insecticides in agriculture, coupled with rampant emissions from industry, households and transporting is engendering distortions in climatic patterns, and global warming, turning environment incompatible for almost all forms of life, pushing many into extinction and prompting destruction of heterogeneity of living beings - affecting versatility of food chain, except humans.

It is critical to surmount this complication before it wreaks havoc. Although immediate panacea may not be available, prioritising concepts like vertical farming and vertical cities could pave way for not only rewilding of green buffers, reinvigorating wildlife but also mitigate predicaments, like rising global temperatures and pollution, facing the environment. Likewise, creating sanctuaries for animals and vegetation and circumscribing human intervention in those locations could help restore biodiversity to a great extent.

To recap, the hunger for rapid development has forced manipulation of the ecology, benefiting mankind but proving detrimental for other organisms and affecting their variety, but prudent steps involving innovative concepts can help resolve this imbroglio.

In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

In the present  scenario,  the challenges  that the environment  is  encountering is an  alarm and warning to address the issues of an intricate and delicate system of biodiversity on priority. There are plausible solutions for this pressing problem which are discussed  below.

There are umpteen  reasons that can be ascribed  to prioritizing protection of the wildlife since these form  an eminent  part of the biosphere; disrupting the food chain will entail unwarranted  consequences.  Moreover, the rising  issues like global warming, pollution and so on are the results of excessive milking of nature; therefore, in order to strike a  balance between the two,  the preservation  process should be taken up in earnest. Similarly, forests act as lungs of the planet, and thus, it is the dire need to preserve them before they are looted.

The ways of protecting the environment  shall be to avoid stripping the planet of its green cover, such a scenario will cease the erosion of soil, restore the climatic conditions of the environment, and definately  address the issues like global warming. Likewise,  poaching of animals should be banned and zones and areas should be earmarked to render intervention free life to wild fauna. On top of that, vertical housing  systems should be promoted to prevent deforestation; it  can help restore the health of the environment since it will help rewilding the planet and restore vitality of the environment.  

To cap it all, I feel that this biosystem is interconnected, and preservation  of one shall benefit the other; thus, making it a  necessity that in spite of  economic or societal  problems, wildlife protection should be taken up as it  forms an important  part of the earth.

Some people believe that wild birds or animals should be forced out of the city, while others think they should be kept in the city. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 Some people believe that wild birds or animals should be forced out of the city, while others think they should be kept in the city. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

• Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

• while others think they should be kept in the city. 

• Some people believe that wild birds or animals should be forced out of the city, 

Why not let them live in cities

• Cities could prove to be dangerous places for them: they could be overrun, or knoacked down by vehicles or shot by humans under the pretext of self defense.

• They could also pose a threat to the human population. 

 

Why let them live in cities

• It is humans who have encroached their spaces and not them who have invaded human habitats

• They control pests

• Transferring them to other locations could be hazardous not only for them - they might not be able to adapt to a new surrounding, and also the native population of destined location - these beings might transmit disease to them. 

A fierce argument has ensued(triggered) over the issue of accommodating exotic creatures in urban locales. Whereas some are in favor of relocating them to remote locations, others insist upon retaining them. The following paragraphs shall delve deeper into this matter, and emanate its agreement with the latter view.   

An  army of experts is in favor of moving wild fauna away from the urban environment, for it is felt that this step will only benefit these creatures by ensuring their safety. Their intermingling with humans is likely to jeopardize their safety; they are regularly knocked down, or run over by vehicles, on city roads, and in extreme cases, they are either attacked by pet dogs, or shot by residents, on the pretext of self defense. For instance, thousands of monkeys are either bitten by dogs, or killed by speeding cars or gunshots every year across the world, in various cities like New York and Chicago.

Nevertheless, those critical of the former proposal are up in arms and assert that it is mankind that has encroached the habitats of these animals and birds, and thus reserves no right to evict the latter from the spaces they are endemic (originating) to. Such a move will render them homeless and make them struggle to adjust in the alien environment, owing to changes in climatic conditions, food web composition and competition from the natives of those areas. To corroborate, the moose deer was migrated to forests from Copenhagen in 1998 as a part of a pilot project. This experiment proved to be a spectacular failure as none of the 800 animals survived.          

In hindsight, disputes aside, rare fauna are the true inhabitants of regions where cities have appeared, but this aspect does not make them worthy of being ejected from their natural environment. 

The debate surrounding co-existence of exotic creatures with humans in urban locales is the most heated, with some suggesting that the former be relocated to remote locations, others protesting and asserting that these should be allowed to survive where they are. This essay shall analyze both the perspectives and share a plausible conclusion.

Intro 2

A school of thought suggests that exotic creatures should be relocated out of the urban locales, while others protest and feel that they should be allowed to survive wherever they are. The following paragraphs shall analyze both the perspectives profoundly and draw a plausible conclusion.   

Intro 3

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Justified. Why? 

• The clinical trials conducted on animals has allowed to ensure that the products and procedures are safe for human consumption. 
• Many medicines and surgical processes perfected have helped save billions of lives   
• Humans being deemed as superior creatures cannot be used as subjects
• None,  the pharma companies, would want lawsuits on them 
• The creatures being used for tests are not exotic and are otherwise also killed in huge numbers every year as they  considered as pests 

Or not. Yes? 

• Humans have not created animals but nature, so they do not have right to inflict on the poor beings  

Justified. Why? 

• The clinical trials conducted on animals has allowed to ensure that the products and procedures are safe for human consumption. 
• Many medicines and surgical processes perfected have helped save billions of lives   
• Humans being deemed as superior creatures cannot be used as subjects
• None,  the pharma companies, would want lawsuits on them 

Alternatives 

• Human tissue cloning has earned earned success and the new products can be tried on those 

Several animal activists are in favor of declaring clinical trials on animals as illegal by virtue of being cruel, but the scientific community upholds this practice and feels this is the only hope for many ailing in the current paradigm. The following paragraphs shall critically analyze the matter and explore the alternatives.

To begin with, those objecting to such undertakings assert that it is unethical and inhuman to subject poor beings who cannot voice their consent or dissent, to pain and suffering for the sake of mankind. Nature has created everyone equal, and thus, no one enjoys the privilege of causing harm to others, in order to develop and improve their own lifestyles while those involved in/undergoing painful clinical procedures are exposed to unbearable sufferings, distortions and agony. However, those vouching for these endeavors are good to point that the animals used in such experiments, such as monkey, rodents and guinea pig are not some exotic species that are nearing extinction, but are regarded as pests and a menace by farmers, store keepers, factory owners, and even municipalities and are either shot or poisoned in millions every year across the world. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in using these creatures for conducting tests. Similarly, currently, there is hardly any other reliable alternative to supersede this process even though tissue cloning is being developed, but it is a long and pain-staking procedure which may eons take to materialize. Meanwhile, life of humans cannot be jeopardized by trying medicine, products and routine on them, or affording them unproven formulations. Overall, disputes aside, in my opinion conducting experiments on animals is completely acceptable until plausible alternatives are discovered since such undertakings have helped save millions of lives, which otherwise would be lost to preventable diseases, and continued wreaking havoc on mankind.

Intro 1 - 

There is a tug of war going on between animal rights activists and the scientific community over the need to carry out clinical procedures on animals. While the former vehemently protest against this practice, the latter are in its favor. The following paragraphs shall discuss this matter critically and explore alternatives.

Intro 2- 

The debate surrounding testing on animals in the scientific domain is the most heated. On the one hand, an army of animal activists want this practice to be completely proscribed; on the other, the scientific community lends its support to this arrangement citing the reason that currently there are few options available to replace this.

Intro 3- 

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

Instead of investing in development, lawmakers are investing on priority on protecting the wildlife. Many consider this to be a positive evolution, while some register their dissent. The forthcoming paragraphs shall look into the matter thoroughly and give a plausible conclusion with examples.

To begin with, those terming this preference as something laden with umpteen benefits profess that this is profoundly helping in preserving exotic flora and fauna from vanishing, thereby protecting the delicate balance of nature, otherwise the human race might also face jeopardy one day. To exemplify, wild honey bees play an imperative role in pollination of flowers, and if they die out it would be very difficult for farmers to pollinate flowers, and mankind would be unable to produce food for its subsistence.

Moreover, protecting wild species mandates conserving their habitats, and such a policy is helping preserve forests that act as lungs of the planet by recycling the air, regulating temperatures, and acting as an infinite source of raw material: even wild animals are a rich source of raw material such as wood. Additionally, plants and animals are the only link between the present and the past, and can provide humans with useful information about past evolution that can aid in discovering solutions for future problems. 

However, some believe that allocating higher priority to wildlife protection is  detrimental to progress as this has created a dearth of funds in other essential realms, and pressing problems that need immediate attention such as developing backward areas,  education, shelter, nutrition, healthcare, and clean drinking water 

To summarize, disputes aside, it can be safely asserted that prioritizing wildlife protection is positive: exotic flora and fauna play an instrumental role in not only sustenance of mankind but also the planet as a whole.   

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

 Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

In contemporary times,  the focus seems to be shifting towards protecting wild flora and fauna, and putting other programs on the backseat. This has evoked a fierce debate whether this shift will fetch favorable, or unfavorable outcomes.       

To begin with, there is widespread optimism being expressed by various  quarters: it has become possible to ensure the continued existence of the human race on this planet. This policy is likely to help in sustaining a precarious balance of the ecology: both animals and plants are an integral part of the environment and food chain, and if one of them disappears, others will follow soon, jeopardizing the safety of mankind itself since this will allow the population of harmful beings to flourish and expose people to various hazards. 

To corroborate, extensive hunting  of wild birds in China during the 1960s, on the pretext that they were a threat to the crops, precipitated into an uncontrolled rise in the number of locusts that eventually destroyed thousands of acres of crop bearing farmlands, and caused a famine. This resulted in millions dying from starvation.

However, there are some counter views to this that point at the pitfalls this shift has brought along despite these being often termed as a fickle imagination, the most prominent being drying out of financial support for other more essential initiatives that  target rendering essential amenities to those in need of food, education, employment, healthcare and above all, clean drinking water. This could hamper the progress of society in the long run, as the skeptics assume. 

Overall, disputes  aside, despite some fears being expressed about the non-existent darker side of this policy, it is quite prudent to assert that humans will only survive if their co-inhabitants do, and for that the damage must be undone. 

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.

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 light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

 In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

Rapidly  rising population coupled with the push for development have made environmentalists to suggest that it is high time that something was done to prevent wild flora and fauna from being lost forever. Failing this opportunity would do an irreversible damage. They also offer certain credible remedies to this impending threat.

The suggestion of taking timely action for the conservation of wildlife holds great substance. In the contemporary times, a major thrust for development is being experienced in almost every sphere of life, be it farming, industry, and infrastructure, which is making it mandatory to bring more and more land under human occupation, resulting in deforestation. If steps to preserve forests and wild beings are not taken in earnest, wild areas and their inhabitants will become part of history and encyclopedias. 

Moreover, swiftly expanding populace of the planet is bound to push the governments across the world to promote reckless exploitation of natural resources, on which even wild animals and plants rely. This has raised an alarm about the grim(dark) future of the wildlife. Overlooking the need to set limits to abuse of naturally occuring minerals will soon deprive the poor wild beings of their food and habitat, wiping them out permanently. 

Nevertheless, some simple and systematic steps can help avert the disaster. Earmarking geographically important areas for the wild flora and fauna, and strictly prohibiting any kind of human intervention in those locations will not only help preserve pristine areas but also engender(cause) recovery in the number of wild creatures. 

Overall, undeniably mankind enjoys the privilege of exploring all possible venues to improve the quality of life, but even so they must not rob others of their life. Hence, meticulous planning should be done in a haste(hurry) to evade extinction of wildlife right away.  

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

 Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

Benefits

- This is beneficial since such investments can help nature in various ways: protecting animals and greenery

- These green buffers help in preventing soil erosion but also regulating the buildup of greenhouse gases

- Help in creating and conserving a rich source of raw materials, which are used for various purposes

Drawbacks

- Has hampered several projects of construction, irrigation and other important things which are vital for society; thus halting the progress

Nowadays, a lot of money is being spent on preserving wildlife by the governments. Some believe it is favorable evolution, whereas others consider that this money could be spent on various other projects.

A lobby of environmentalists regards this step as a beneficial phenomenon since such investments can help nature in various ways: protect wild flora and fauna, as well as their habitats, the forests. These green buffers not only help in preventing soil erosion but also regulating the buildup of greenhouse gases. This can prove to be extremely beneficial for the humans who have become a subject of wrath of nature in various forms, like flooding and droughts, to name a few.

Moreover, by saving wildlife, society is creating and conserving a rich source of raw materials, which are used for different purposes: many secretions of wild animals are used in medicines and different foods such as mushroom, Cranberries, and so on, are obtained from these places which are consumed by humans. The end results of this are beneficial for mankind and are used for their convenience by all.

However, this has also hampered many projects of construction, irrigation and other important things which are vital for society; thus halting the progress, so the critics believe that this money could be utilized for other purposes which is the need of the hour for the upliftment of society from poverty. As per them, investing this money in organisational bodies who provide food and shelter to them would have been a better choice as many go hungry to bed everyday.

Overall, as per some, it is important to invest the money for other projects rather than wildlife, I believe, saving wildlife is much more important for humans to survive as they depend on each other for various needs, and hence it is a positive development.

It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct (e.g. dinosaurs, dodos, etc.). There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening.

 It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct (e.g. dinosaurs, dodos, etc.). There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening.

Do you agree or disagree?

The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with the matter of preserving animals as many suggest that the permanent disappearance of these creatures is influenced by forces of nature. However, several sections vehemently protest against this opinion. 

Those rallying behind this notion propose that in the past, a myriad of species have appeared and vanished from this planet: they were not able to adapt to the evolving environment that brought about climatic shifts, transformation in habitats and availability of food. Even today, a similar phenomenon is being experienced, and thus,  mankind does not need to expend its efforts and squander its resources on a futile exercise.

Nonetheless,  humans must undertake this endeavor: it is strongly asserted the historical events may have been driven by alterations in the surroundings, but the current events of animal extinction are perpetrated by humans. The insatiable hunger for development and prosperity has led to rampant deforestation. Large swathes of land are being cleared of greenery to make way for agriculture, industry and dwelling areas, robbing wild fauna of their habitat and food, and causing them to die out. 

Similarly, humans cannot escape the responsibility of protecting animal species as it is their endeavors such as poaching of exotic fauna that is leading to catastrophic outcomes. For instance, it has been reported that elephants, white and black rhino, blue whales, tigers and lions, to name a few, are on the brink of vanishing permanently from the face of the earth due to mindless hunting of these creatures for their body parts and other material.

Overall, the given belief lacks substance as it is the society that has caused this disaster, and therefore, the onus lies on it to do whatever possible to conserve various animal species. 

In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?  

    

Rapidly  rising population coupled with the push for development have made environmentalists to suggest that it is high time that something was done to prevent wild flora and fauna from being lost forever. Failing this opportunity would do an irreversible damage. They also offer certain credible remedies to this impending threat.  

The suggestion of taking timely action for the conservation of wildlife holds great substance. In the contemporary times, a major thrust for development is being experienced in almost every sphere of life, be it farming, industry, and infrastructure, which is making it mandatory to bring more and more land under human occupation, resulting in deforestation. If steps to preserve forests and wild beings are not taken in earnest, wild areas and their inhabitants will become part of history and encyclopedias. 

 Moreover, swiftly expanding populace of the planet is bound to push the governments across the world to promote reckless exploitation of natural resources, on which even wild animals and plants rely. This has raised an alarm about the grim future of the wildlife. Overlooking the need to set limits to abuse of naturally occuring minerals will soon deprive the poor wild beings of their food and habitat, wiping them out permanently. 

Nevertheless, some simple and systematic steps can help avert the disaster. Earmarking geographically important areas for the wild flora and fauna, and strictly prohibiting any kind of human intervention in those locations will not only help preserve pristine areas but also engender recovery in the number of wild creatures. 

To recapitulate, it is true that mankind enjoys the privilege of exploring all possible venues to improve the quality of life, but even so they must not rob others of their life. Hence, meticulous planning should be done in a haste to evade extinction of wildlife right away.