Please help me with my writing task 2

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?

It is believed that individuals demand for agriculture place, accommodation, and industrial activities have prioritized over setting aside land for imperiled species. I disagree with this statement because it is fundamentally flawed.

On the one hand, human are students still a part of nature which is home to other creature's survival in harmony. First, people should inherently obey nature’s law by not conduct any actions frightening animal species. Once people never intervene in natural habitat in the first place lead to spares other creatures from hiding humans. Second, with the advent of a variety of sources, human has no difficulty to make up ways that useless land. Given that, constructing a high-rise building is a highly effective solution for land pressing issues, resolve the shortage of land in contemporary society.

On the other hand, people’s activities consistently have a negative effect on the animal resulting in habitat destruction over geological time, the dire consequence will ensue. Ever-increasingly human-induced activities widen in animal’s place that results in creatures following a mass extinction. Thousands of animals have wiped out based on overexploitation such as deforestation which imbalance ecosystem where provides food sources, is essential for animal living. Furthermore, the burgeoning of the industrial place is the mainstream cause for degrading the quality of the land. Discharge untreated wastes from industrial zones, as a result, deteriorated land will suffer and be harmful to animals, hence it may cause mass deaths among animal communities.

In conclusion, I opposed to the idea that spending land for human basic needs out of threatened creatures because of the cost of humanly caused activities animals are confronting.