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.
Nowadays, ecologist always argues that urbanization takes too many lands that animals inhabit, which causes the extinctions of wild animals. So more and more dispute regarding the importance of lands developments for humans occurs. Some people assert that human needs should be firstly satisfied, while others disapprove it. In my viewpoint, I am neutral in this statement.
First of all, I agree that human needs for land, housing and industry are essential in human substance. With the increment of population and the restrictions of natural resources, people need more lands for housing, farming and working. It is undeniable that we take more and more lands for development so that ousting wild animals from their inhabitants seems an only method to satisfy our own needs. So, the result seems crucial since many wild animals have to confront extinction. However, from the prospective of evolution, it is always the stronger creatures conquer the land, and the weaker need to leave or disappear. It is the choice of nature. In this situation, it is acceptable for human beings' expansion of landing.
However, I don't think people should take over the lands not for primary living requirement, but for subsidiary entertainment purpose. For example, some sports clubs purchase land for building golf activities, hotels, or other commercial purposes. To achieve this, people disturb animals' life, oust them and finally make them endangered. People should think about that the extinction of one kind of animal would have impact to the food chain and might lead to other animals disappearance, and how worse the result would be hardly to image.
I also believe that sometime land development and protection of endangered animal are not contradicted with each other. It is entirely possible that people can build more national park or enclosure some areas for animal protection. In addition, this implementation would have positive effect for scientist to observe and assist the wild animals for their surviving in the earth.
In conclusion, my understanding is that people's need for surviving is essential for taking lands for housing and industry, and we can make efforts by reducing the unnecessary land covering in order to protect endangered animals. What's more, as a stronger conquer in the earth, people have the responsibility to balance human development and wild life protection.
The word "Nowadays" is not very great. It is a word people don't use very often. It might be better to say, "In modern times," or "In the 21st century,"...
But actually, it is bad for me to tell you not to write "nowadays." People do use it. I guess I just don't like it! :-)
People should think about the fac t that the extinction of one kind of animal would have an impact on the food chain and might lead to other animals' disappearance, and how much worse the result would be. The potential for harm is hard to imagine.
I agree with Parth that an essay should express a point of view, and you should take a stance on an issue. But I also think this is an intriguing essay. If you really are neutral, that is what you should say. So, I feel conflicted about this idea. I like your essay, and it was interesting to see someone say, "I am neutral."
