“It is a waste of time and resources to try and save endangered species.” How far do you agree with the above statement. Say why.
By Nadine Hafez (11G)
If you were to take the initiative of spending your time and your money to help out in society, how would you spend your time and energy? To be more precise, on what would you spend them? Some people would help out the people; the poor, the sick, the needy. Others would choose to help out the endangered animals that are about to go extinct. Some people think it is a waste of time and resources to try and save endangered animals, and I am one of those people.
So many animals no longer exist, but I do not see any human remorse. Statistically, 95% of the animals have gone extinct, which means that the drastic amount of animals that we now see only form 5% of all animal species that ever existed. My question is, who is missing those animals? Do you see little children crying because they never got to see a certain animal? I am not at all encouraging killing the animals, but if nature decides that their time is over, well then maybe for once we should just let nature take its course.
Those who spend so much money on trying to save the endangered animals, I believe, need to take another look at how else they could be spending their time. So many human beings, just like me and you, struggle to survive day by day. I won’t use the example of how many kids there are in Africa who need to be fed, even though the number is outrageous. However, to keep things a little more realistic, in a country like Egypt alone, the population is now over 80 million. At least 10% of the population is living beneath poverty line. Ten percent! That means 8 million people could use that money that is to be spent – to say the least.
Human beings can not be held responsible for the extinction of so many animals so far. However, they act like they are. So much money is spent on saving these endangered animals as if it was our fault in the first place that they are about to go extinct. It’s not! As stated earlier, 95% of the animals have NATURALLY gone extinct; we had nothing to do with it.
I will, however, admit that human beings have been somewhat responsible for the loss of some animals’ habitat. But this is where the term “survival of the fittest” comes in. we as humans NEED to use this land to find space to live. Opposers would say that this is very cold: to say that it is O.K. to use up the animals’ space so we can live. But then how is it not cold to say that “the animals should live and these humans can just die. I mean, there is 6 billion of us on this planet Earth!”?
I say “save the humans!” someone would argue saying that humans don’t really need our help. Those people you see begging, they’re just begging because it’s easier to beg. If they wanted, they could find a job, as construction workers, or cleaners, etc. that is a fact that I can’t deny. But when I ask you to help the people, I’m not just saying we should feed them and buy them clothes. Some people are really sick and have absolutely no money to pay for their treatment. And yet, we spend our energy and resources on saving the orangutans? In some countries, poor people would get a huge amount of kids, even though they can’t afford to feed just one kid. However, they still do it because of their ignorance; they are under the impression that it is somehow more honorable to get more and more kids. That, for me – and any other educated person for that matter, is pure stupidity. But this is, in fact, lack of education and awareness. So how about we spend the money on their education, which they obviously can’t pay for themselves? That would still be helping them out, and on the long run, maybe even saving them.
So which to save: the animals or the humans? If you’re going to make use of your free time helping out, if that decision is to be made: to put in time an effort in something beneficial instead of wasting them on various other things that we tend to get caught up in, then save the humans. I know that’s what I would have done.
If you were to take the initiative of spending your time and your money to help out in society, how would you spend your time and energy? To be more precise, on what would you spend them? Some people would help out the people; the poor, the sick, the needy. Others would choose to help out the endangered animals that are about to go extinct. Some people think it is a waste of time and resources to try and save endangered animals, and I am one of those people.
So many animals no longer exist, but I do not see any human remorse. Statistically, 95% of the animals have gone extinct, which means that the drastic amount of animals that we now see only form 5% of all animal species that ever existed. My question is, who is missing those animals? Do you see little children crying because they never got to see a certain animal? I am not at all encouraging killing the animals, but if nature decides that their time is over, well then maybe for once we should just let nature take its course.
Those who spend so much money on trying to save the endangered animals, I believe, need to take another look at how else they could be spending their time. So many human beings, just like me and you, struggle to survive day by day. I won’t use the example of how many kids there are in Africa who need to be fed, even though the number is outrageous. However, to keep things a little more realistic, in a country like Egypt alone, the population is now over 80 million. At least 10% of the population is living beneath poverty line. Ten percent! That means 8 million people could use that money that is to be spent – to say the least.
Human beings can not be held responsible for the extinction of so many animals so far. However, they act like they are. So much money is spent on saving these endangered animals as if it was our fault in the first place that they are about to go extinct. It’s not! As stated earlier, 95% of the animals have NATURALLY gone extinct; we had nothing to do with it.
I will, however, admit that human beings have been somewhat responsible for the loss of some animals’ habitat. But this is where the term “survival of the fittest” comes in. we as humans NEED to use this land to find space to live. Opposers would say that this is very cold: to say that it is O.K. to use up the animals’ space so we can live. But then how is it not cold to say that “the animals should live and these humans can just die. I mean, there is 6 billion of us on this planet Earth!”?
I say “save the humans!” someone would argue saying that humans don’t really need our help. Those people you see begging, they’re just begging because it’s easier to beg. If they wanted, they could find a job, as construction workers, or cleaners, etc. that is a fact that I can’t deny. But when I ask you to help the people, I’m not just saying we should feed them and buy them clothes. Some people are really sick and have absolutely no money to pay for their treatment. And yet, we spend our energy and resources on saving the orangutans? In some countries, poor people would get a huge amount of kids, even though they can’t afford to feed just one kid. However, they still do it because of their ignorance; they are under the impression that it is somehow more honorable to get more and more kids. That, for me – and any other educated person for that matter, is pure stupidity. But this is, in fact, lack of education and awareness. So how about we spend the money on their education, which they obviously can’t pay for themselves? That would still be helping them out, and on the long run, maybe even saving them.
So which to save: the animals or the humans? If you’re going to make use of your free time helping out, if that decision is to be made: to put in time an effort in something beneficial instead of wasting them on various other things that we tend to get caught up in, then save the humans. I know that’s what I would have done.
Feedback:
Nadine was awarded a high 'B' grade for this essay. She has a clear introduction in which she states what she believes clearly and succintly. Her writing is mainly accurate with only the occasional error. Paragraphs are well sequenced. She also develops her arguments - she states her opinion and then justifies it.
She writes with passion and conviction: good use of rhetorical questions and exclamation marks. It is obvious she has a good understanding of the issue and has spent some time thinking about it.
She could have got a higher grade if she had spent a few paragraphs on counter-argument. She could also attempt complex sentence structures in places and try to be more ambitious in her choice of vocabulary.
- Mr. Roberts
2 comments:
I found her essay well written in a sense that can easily persuade the reader. I noticed many statistical information which in my opinion is an efficacious tool which can easily influece the mind of the reader. By reading this essay I learnt and understood much better how to be more emphatic by expressing more emotions and feelings rather than being more factual.
thanks
I am, and always have been, a descriptive writer, more into fantasy and such. But after reading this, and seeing the grade Nadine got, i realised it is so much harder for me, because i find it difficult to express my own feelings about something on a piece of paper, but extremely easy when writing a descriptive essay.
Overall, i thought this essay was worth-while reading. It was very good.
Post a Comment