Buổi 85: Ôn chu kỳ 5 – sửa lỗi tuần 15–17 & viết Task 2 tính giờ (bảo tồn)

Conservationists often debate whether limited resources should be used to protect entire habitats or to rescue particular species that are close to extinction. While I accept that some species deserve special efforts, I largely agree that protecting habitats should be the priority, because it is the more effective way to preserve wildlife in the long term.

The main reason is that most species decline because the places where they live are destroyed. When a forest is cleared or a wetland is drained, it is not only one animal that suffers but hundreds of plants, insects and birds that depend on one another. Protecting the habitat therefore helps all of these species at once, whereas a programme focused on one animal may leave the underlying problem unsolved. A species that is bred in captivity and released, for example, is unlikely to survive if its habitat continues to shrink.

In addition, habitat protection tends to offer better value for money. Breeding programmes for a single species can be extremely expensive and may take decades, while preserving a wetland or forest can benefit many species, as well as providing services that humans rely on, such as clean water and flood protection.

That said, there are cases where saving a particular species is justified. Some animals play a key role in their ecosystem, so that their disappearance would harm many others. Moreover, well-known species can attract public attention and funding that can then be used to protect the wider habitat. In such cases, the two approaches support each other rather than compete.

In conclusion, although focused efforts to save individual species can be valuable, I believe that protecting natural habitats should come first, since it addresses the main cause of extinction and benefits far more species.