nospeedlimhn
New member
I have to write an essay with that title.
I know that today, many species are under threat of extinction (some may be gone already) and it's pretty much because of us.
Balancing the ecosystem is important, so we do need to slow down the speed of extinction.
The question is, to what extent.
Is it necessary, for example, to close every single natural area which has endangered species?
If so, would that actually help the environment?
Protection of biodiversity is indeed vital.
But in my opinion, excessive protection of biodiversity just sounds like a self-centred thought of humans.
Some people say "we need to protect animals and plants for our future".
Doesn't that sort of sound like "we are the most important species in the world"?
Please give your opinions about the extent of protection of biodiversity.
I know that today, many species are under threat of extinction (some may be gone already) and it's pretty much because of us.
Balancing the ecosystem is important, so we do need to slow down the speed of extinction.
The question is, to what extent.
Is it necessary, for example, to close every single natural area which has endangered species?
If so, would that actually help the environment?
Protection of biodiversity is indeed vital.
But in my opinion, excessive protection of biodiversity just sounds like a self-centred thought of humans.
Some people say "we need to protect animals and plants for our future".
Doesn't that sort of sound like "we are the most important species in the world"?
Please give your opinions about the extent of protection of biodiversity.