Many animals are in danger of extinction. Some people say that we should protect only those animals that are useful to humans. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
I completely disagree with the view that we should only protect animals useful to humans.
It is undeniable that protecting animals with direct value to humans makes short-term sense: domesticated crops' pollinators like bees support global food security, and medicinal species such as horseshoe crabs provide critical materials for vaccine testing. However, this narrow approach is ecologically short-sighted and ethically unacceptable.
First, every species plays an irreplaceable role in maintaining ecosystem balance, and the "uselessness" of a species often only reflects human cognitive limitations. For example, sea otters were once hunted nearly to extinction for their fur, with no obvious "practical value" recognized at the time; their loss led to explosive growth of sea urchins, which destroyed vast kelp forests that serve as habitats for countless fish and marine organisms, ultimately collapsing coastal fisheries that directly benefit humans. Even seemingly insignificant insects or soil organisms regulate nutrient cycles and purify water, supporting all life including human beings on the planet.
Second, all species have intrinsic value independent of human interests, and mass extinction caused by human activity is an irreversible loss of planetary biodiversity. Since human expansion, habitat destruction and pollution have pushed 1 million species to the brink of extinction; selecting only "useful" species to protect is equivalent to humans taking arbitrary control of other lives' right to exist, which violates basic ecological morality.
In conclusion, protecting all endangered animals is not charity, but a necessary guarantee for human survival and the health of the whole planet.