Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industryare more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do youagree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specificreasons and examples to support your answer.

In my opinion, no needs related to the development of human cities and villages should be put ahead of the necessity to preserve the habitat of endangered animals. Since the beginning of the 20th century, we have been watching the extermination of several specimes of animals around the world because of the expanding of civilizations. Stopping this process is fundamental to grant the continuity of the human race.

Firstly, allowing the end of endangered animals by taking its lands puts in risk the whole environment. This happens because the disappearing of an important predator or pray affects the entire chain, leading to the disappearing of many other specimes. An example of that process took place back in the 70s in the forests of Amazônia. Back there, many farmers started to open free land for farming, ignoring the killing of endangered specimes that it provoked. One of the exterminated animals was a predator of a specific type of insect that represented a danger to the crops, their spreading resulted in huge losses to the farmers.

Secondly, the expansion of industries and houses increases the emission of CO2, affecting the quality of the air not only in the region but in the entire planet. This is also an effect that can turn back to human beings again. The levels of CO2 can only be reduced by reducing the expansion of industries and houses.

Concluding, the impact that this expansion causes on the environment is far bigger than the good brought by the economic development archieved with these expansions. Not only the endangered animals should be preserved by controlling the expansion of human areas, but energy should be taken by the governments to grant the survival and well being of these animals.