Pls check my writing

There has been a debate regarding the question whether all wild species or only some kinds should be conserved. Whilst the significance of all wild animals is undeniable, I am of the opinion that some specific species ought to be emphasized.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why preserving all animals in the wild is essential. Firstly, since each of them has a crucial role to play in the food web, the loss of one certain species would exert a negative impact on the survival of others. For example, the disappearance of rabbits would result in the decreasing population of its predators, such as foxes, eagles, as they suffer from food shortages. Another reason is that every wild animal contributes partly to maintaining healthy biodiversity leading to a healthy ecosystem that supplies oxygen, purifies the air, and regulates the climate.

On the other hand, I am convinced that only endangered species should be protected. The main problem is that saving all animals in the wild would require a significant amount of budget. Meanwhile, humankind needs to allocate resources to more alarming environmental and societal issues, which pose a greater threat to human existence such as global warming and famine. Furthermore, some groups of wild animals with a burgeoning fertility rate are detrimental to human lives. Rats, for instance, take a toll on people whose livelihood is farming since they are one of the culprits behind the destruction of crops in many regions. Additionally, they carry a lot of diseases and are likely to contaminate food and water resources, which undoubtedly is a danger to human health.

In conclusion, because protecting all wildlife species seems to be unfeasible for the time being, I agree that people should put a priority on preserving those that are in danger of extinction.