Many animals are endangered. Some people argue that we should only protect animals that are useful to human. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that a huge number of animal species are facing threat of extinction . Some people believe that humans are only supposed to conserve animals that are beneficial for human being. Personally, I completely disagree with this statement.

First, from moral and ethical perspective, human should protect any animals regardless of the circumstances they are undergoing. The main reason why many animals are becoming extinction because of human activities, such as deforestation, pollution, and overhunting. To be more specific, since humans are the cause of this problem, we have duty and responsibility to address it for all animals. For example, the giant panda may not have practical use but its survival shows a certain symbol of the important of wildlife conservation. The idea of only protecting useful animals is selfish and beyond the moral boundary.

Second, from scientific and practical aspects, all animals rely and connect to each other in a complex ecosystem. If we merely focus on perseving parts of endangered species, biodiversity will be unbalanced. For example, insects serve as food for fishes and shrimps, which are indirectly support for human food chain. If humans decide that insects have no use, we could face food crisis. Furthermore, some animals have not being discoveried its use yet, but this does not mean that they are unbeneficial. In the future, some plants and animals provide potential medicines and scientific breakthroughs to the world that improves scientific progress.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that every individual should protect all endangered animals, not only those with human benefits. By saving all of them, humanity shows its basic moral and beneficial for future scientific studies.