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

In today's hectic life it is astonishing fact that people from all walks of life differ greatly in their attitudes towards this phenomenon. We find that some people hold the great idea that human needs are most important than animals, on the other hand others may have an opposite idea. From my perspective, I would side with the former. So, as Hollywood celebrities say:"Let's cut to the chase."

Taking my view into account the reason which may shed some light on my point is that land is a kind of basic need for people. It goes without saying that people at different corners of the world are making a lot effort to assuage their fundamental penchants like shelter by using land. This significantly lies in the fact that shelter has provided a significance meaning for people all over the world and without an efficient shelter, people would be searching in darkness without a torch to light the way of life for them. Besides land can makes people feel comfortable towards the future because people can gain energy from their lands.

Another rationale of why I take positive idea about the first perspective in the introductory paragraph is that land is the first step and too important to gain progress for each nation. It is absolutely certain that there are some nations in the world that do not have any maternal state to acquire identity and prosperity including Kurds. Although Kurds have a great diversity of talents, technology and smart people, but they cannot provide any development pattern to gain pride for their nations. This argument goes on to assert that land is the prerequisite of any movement among each community to reach prosperity

Nevertheless, the two paragraphs in the body should not be over generalized. Just as an old adage goes:"a coin has two sides", those who take the other side are partially reasonable every once in a while. That is, there might be a situation in which some people believe that we should care enough to animals due to the fact that our generation chain is dependent on other species. In fact, destroying animal's habitat has a negative effect directly towards all human-beings which catapulted human-beings to the most dangerous situations that they have ever experienced.

To put it in a nutshell in light of the previously discussed reasons, the viewpoint of those who believe mankind should not destroy animals' land is accepted occasionally, though the situation like direct relationship is too special and fairly rare that should not be taken as a general rule. Indeed, basic need for people and gaining progress for each nation are prime factors to my propensity for choosing land to use for people with some sort of care about animals. If I could have a chance to decision making, I do not have a bit of hesitation to assign enough land for people.