Many today would argue that there is undue emphasis on the safeguarding of various species of wild animals and birds. In my opinion, though there are legitimate practical objections, it is overall positive given the potential impact of abandoning such efforts. Opponents of current conservation initiatives argue they are an unnecessary waste of valuable resources. The natural development of ecosystems involves animals going extinct and fighting for survival. Human intervention can, therefore, be seen as unnatural to a certain degree as animals that adapt will flourish, and others will become obsolete. Added to this is the economic burden. The majority of endangered animals are in developing nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. National governments in these countries have a variety of other concerns related to healthcare, education, employment, and so on that take precedence over animal populations. However, humans should protect animals as their disappearance is irreversible. The issue of responsibility is not, to my mind, a compelling enough argument as blame can be assigned in a number of directions and is too self-righteous to be persuasive. Instead, it can be argued that permanent damage to the Earth will impact future generations. The Earth depends on biodiversity not only for the development of new medicines and the functioning of a healthy food chain but also in order to showcase its varied expressions of life. As the only known home to life in the universe, it would be short-sighted to eliminate species of animals and damage this reputation. In conclusion, despite the financial cost, it is essential to protect wild animals that may become extinct. Governments must sometimes prioritise the future over short-term considerations.