| |
It is often difficult to decide which position to take whenever there is a debate regarding a choice between protecting endangered species and helping people. Naturally, it is humane to help people but I also
believe that some funding must be kept aside to protect certain animal species for the following reasons.
Firstly, many animal species help in the survival of plant species. For example, there are many bat species that are becoming extinct. Such bats help keep the insect population in control. In addition, many
animals, like rodents, help in the dispersal of plant seeds and in the pollination of plants. Some of these plants are important for medical research and the development of medicines.
Secondly, in some regions, people depend on the biological cycles as a food and income source. Larger animals often depend on smaller animals as a food source. If one source is eliminated, other animals are
indirectly affected. Furthermore, in certain regions in Canada and Africa, certain wildlife areas and their existing biological cycles help bring in tourist income.
Lastly, the human species are the only species that have the knowledge and ability to help protect endangered animals and our ecosystems. With funding, biologists and naturalists can use their years of
knowledge to help in the breeding of various animal species. Furthermore, since people are often responsible for habitat destruction, it is only right that they use some resources to help preserve whatever important wildlife habitats are
left.
In summary, providing funding to help people is a direct method while protecting the natural biological cycle of our ecosystems is an indirect way to help people. In the end, we are protecting our own human
species in the long run. |
|
