38.    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? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Should Endangered Animals Survived?

It has been a controversy for human needs for farmland, housing, and industry. It is more important than saving land for endangered animals. However, do they really have their values to survive? In this essay, I will discuss the reasons for not saving land for those endangered animals.

Saving land for endangered animals are not necessary. As we know, economic development is very important to us. It makes us wealthy and it improves our living standard. Farmland gives us food, houses give us shelters, industry give us money, but what the endangered animals contribute to us? People may think that some of the animals, like pandas, can be a tourist attraction. We can make a profit  from the tourists. Admittedly, we can make a profit  from the tourists, but who can promise that the resource  from tourists must be higher than that from  industry? Not all the endangered animals can attract tourists. Therefore, using land for farmland, housing and industry are obviously more worthwhile.

Apart from the economic value, using land for human needs is safer since some of the endangered animals are dangerous. If we leave a forest for tigers, it is possible if the tigers leave the forest and attack people in towns. That means, we have to pay extra efforts to avoid them leaving the forest. On the other hand, the fur of tigers is attractive to the fur manufacturers, which means some people may kill the tigers for money. So, we have to pay extra effort and cost again to protect the tigers.

On top of it,  our world is seriously polluted, even we save land for those animals, they would still die out. The difference is that whether they would die earlier or later. Should we put a lot of resources to save them? Or should we put the resources on technology development or other places to maintain a better living standard?

All in all, while balancing the pros and cons of leaving land for the endangered animals. I think keeping the lands for human use outweighs saving lands for the endangered species. We should keep the animals in a less populous place, but save the lands for human activities.