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?
Animals are important creatures of the world. Some people are of the view that wild animals should not exist in this era; thus, they should not be protected. I completely disagree with the premise since they are beneficial for society.
The first benefit of wild animals is that children obtain knowledge when they see them in a zoo. That is to say that when these animals are kept in a zoo, people, especially children, learn about them that increases their knowledge about these creatures. Every year most primary schools in Melbourne, for example, take their students to local zoos so that they can learn about animals and their categories. This also encourages students to read history of numerous animals, including their living and eating habits. Many of them are helped later in their career when they study veterinary science.
Another reason of protecting wild animals is that their skins are used to manufacture leather; whereas, various medicines are tested on their bodies. In other words, if wild animals are not saved, they might not breed or even extinct from the world; humans may not be able to introduce new medical treatments. Russia, for instance, makes multiple leather products from snow leopards' skins and administer new injections on elephants before introducing them to public. This example proves that wild animals are useful for us and should not be subject to extinction.
In conclusion, I totally disagree with the premise that wild animals should not be protected as they have no place in this era. This is because they are beneficial for our children as learn about them, various leather products can be made from their skins and medical drugs are tested on them.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.