Troubled by the rising number of endangered animals, many people propose that animal conservation should only be centered on the benefits for humans. I do not think such a viewpoint is acceptable.

Admittedly, these people have the validity to hold this opinion, which is because the existence and extinction of species are originally a demonstration of a natural law: survival for the fittest. As the highest creature in nature, humans should consider the benefits brought by these endangered animals to our survival and development, and then selectively protect them. For example, in order to protect ourselves from the cold, people can choose to use the fur from the wild mink to make clothes for people to keep warm, and through the protection of these wild animals, the relevant mink-made products are available to people for a long time. However, this is a dangerous choice, violating the laws and regulations as those animals are hunted almost to extinction. What people see as "useful" is actually profitable, and "profit" is mostly driven by greed.

In modern days, the reason why numerous animals become endangered is largely due to the random killing by humans. In order to improve the so-called "quality of life", humans will hunt and kill many animals to make the corresponding goods, such as elephant for ivory,rhinoceros for horns and Tibetan antelope for skin. With these animals dying out, the ecological balance will be disrupted, followed by some potential irreversible effects. A potentillustration of this is the proliferation of a certain species caused by the disappearance of itsnatural enemies, which in turn incurs the damage to people's lives. While if endangered animals are protected as a whole, the public can be educated to re-examine the role they play in the biosphere, thus changing consumption choices and creating a healthy balance between economy and ecology. Hence, we should protect all endangered animals in order to help maintain the stability of the ecosphere.