Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, and the protection is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Wild life preservation is being pronounced often in today’s media. Despite that, some people are on the view that saving wild species is just a worthless act as animals have no room in this modern time. It is disagreed to that concept. This view can be supported by analyzing how wild life balances the life on this planet and how useful and profitable is wildlife consortium.
First of all, diversity of species is the key aspect of the life on earth. Each and every living organism has a distinct role in the preservation of life in here. So, the loss of one type of species may affect the other either directly or indirectly. For instance, last year, officials in Kerala found that a reduction in the number of frogs resulted in the uncontrolled growth of mosquitoes that caused many deadly communicable diseases such as dengue in local community. Therefore, the government of Kerala has initiated a program to save and increase the number of frogs. From this example it is clear that animals are important for mankind to sustain.
Secondly, the misconception about the wild life preservation centers could be the reason for some people to opine it as worthless of money. In fact, these centers are helpful for government to achieve some revenue. For example, many tourists are attracted to the Jim-Corbett national park in India, where near extinct species like Bengal tiger is being preserved. Therefore, the argument which states that saving wild animals is not worth the money is baseless.
To conclude, when wild animals help to balance the life on this planet, their preservation is helpful for us to find some revenue in alternate ways. Thus, it is evident that why I have disagreed to the argument which underestimate the wild life.