Prompt: PROTECTING WILD ANIMALS Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe the idea that it is pointless to spend money on protecting wild animals because it doesn't give us any benefits. To me, I completely disagree with this point of view. Ċ From my perspective, it is unreasonable to say that wild animal has no place in the 21st century. I completely do not agree that the planet Earth was created only for the benefits of humans, and it is absurd to allow the extinction of any species in the world. Overmore, there is no certain reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to destroy every square metre of land in order to feed or satisfy us; there are many other possible solutions to exists side by side with wild animals - this is our aim. Ċ I also disagree with the idea that protecting wild animals wastes lots of resources. It is the protection of natural habitats and ensures the wild animals' survival. Furthermore, many scientists agree that nature has very important standing in human life. For example, forests produce oxygen, stabilizing the Earth's climate. If we destroy these lands, the costs that we will receive is very sky-high! No oxygen. No stable climate. We can not keep humans survive safely. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we would maintain the survival of all life on Earth. Ċ In a nutshell, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I strongly believe that we should do everything we can to protect the wild animals and their habitats.