Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important that 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.
In the past, there have been many endangered animals. Now they are extinct. Does it matter? Has our environment been affected by their absence? Has the quality of our own life been changed? The answer to these questions is “Yes.”
Yes. It does matter if we destroy an endangered species habitat to develop more farmland, housing or industrial parks. There is a delicate balance of nature. If one small part is removed, it will affect all the other parts. For example, if certain trees are cut down, bats will have no place to roost. If they cannot roost, they cannot breed. If there are no bats, there will be no animal, or bird to eat certain insects that plague our crops.
Yes. Our environment has been affected by the absence of certain animals. Certain flowers are pollinated by butterflies, which migrate from Canada to Mexico. Some of the breeding grounds of these butterflies were destroyed. Now these flowers are disappearing from certain areas. We will no longer be able to enjoy their beauty.
Yes. The quality of our life has been changed America used to be covered with giant trees. Now we have to visit them in one small park. Rain forests around the world are being cut down to make room for humans. We will never be able to see or study this fragile ecosystem.
I would encourage us humans to look for other alternatives for our farmlands, housing, and industries. We have alternatives; the animals do not.
extinct：灭绝的; 绝种的; 消逝的; 破灭的
delicate：微妙的; 熟练的; 纤弱的; 易损的
crop：农作物; 产量; 庄稼; 平头
alternative：二中择一; 可供选择的事物; 取舍; 非传统(或他择性)生活方式的追随者(或鼓吹者)