Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
|
Nowadays, it is controversial issue that whether human needs are more important than saving land for endangered animals or not. Some people say that we have to satisfy our various needs so, invasion of many game’s land is inevitable. However, I do not agree with that point of view. I have two main reasons to support my opinion: expanding endangered animals, value of all living things. To begin with, endangered species would be expanded, if we keep developing animal’s land. Nowadays, we do not consider sheep, cows and horses are endangered species. However, if people use grassland as their profitable area, someday those animals might be classified with the endangered species. According to the Forbes article, 23% of
On top of that, all living things are precious. Many people think that only human is important and first one among all living creatures. However, tiny animals or endangered animals are also valuable. So, we must protect their shelters too. To satisfy human needs for living area or industry, invasion to their area is not right act. We should learn the way we live friendly with those all precious creatures. Thus, I think we should save land for precious animals. To sum up, some people think that meeting people’s needs are more important than saving land for endangered animals. However, endangered species would be increased if we keep progressing that area and all living things are valued. Thus I do not agree with the opinion that human needs are more important than shelter for endangered animals.
|