Wild Animals Have No Use in the 21st Century - IELTS Task 2 Sample Essays

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

In an era dominated by rapid technological advancement and urban expansion, some contend that wild animals are obsolete and that conserving them constitutes an imprudent allocation of scarce resources. I strongly disagree with this assertion. Preserving wildlife is indispensable not only for maintaining ecological equilibrium but also for safeguarding long-term economic and scientific interests. These environmental and pragmatic considerations demonstrate that conservation is a necessity rather than a luxury.

First and foremost, wild animals perform irreplaceable ecological functions that sustain the very systems upon which human life depends. Apex predators regulate prey populations, preventing overgrazing and preserving vegetation, while pollinators facilitate crop production and maintain biodiversity. The removal of a single species can trigger a cascade of destabilising consequences, as evidenced by ecological collapses in regions where keystone species have vanished. Such disruptions compromise food security, exacerbate climate change, and intensify natural disasters. To characterise wildlife as “useless” reflects a profoundly anthropocentric and short-sighted worldview that ignores the intricate interdependence of living organisms. Conservation expenditure, therefore, should be viewed not as discretionary spending but as a strategic investment in planetary resilience and human survival.

Equally compelling are the economic and scientific dividends derived from biodiversity. Wildlife tourism generates billions of dollars annually, supporting livelihoods in developing nations and incentivising sustainable land management. Moreover, countless medical breakthroughs have originated from compounds found in wild species; the extinction of flora and fauna may foreclose future cures for diseases that currently afflict humanity. Beyond tangible benefits, wild animals hold cultural and educational value, shaping identities, inspiring art, and fostering environmental stewardship among younger generations. Allocating funds to their preservation thus yields multifaceted returns—economic, intellectual, and cultural—that far outweigh the initial costs.

In conclusion, dismissing wild animals as redundant in the twenty-first century is both ecologically misguided and economically imprudent. Their vital ecological roles and substantial socio-economic contributions unequivocally justify continued conservation efforts. Far from squandering resources, protecting wildlife represents a farsighted commitment to sustainable development and intergenerational equity.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

In contemporary society, it is frequently argued that wild animals no longer serve a meaningful purpose and that devoting funds to their preservation represents an inefficient use of limited public resources. I entirely agree with this view. In an age defined by urgent human crises, conservation often diverts attention and capital from more pressing priorities, and modern technological systems have already supplanted many ecological functions once performed by wildlife. These two considerations underpin my position.

To begin with, allocating substantial resources to wildlife preservation is increasingly difficult to justify in light of acute human needs. Governments in both developed and developing nations grapple with underfunded healthcare systems, inadequate housing, educational inequality, and climate adaptation costs. Channeling billions into maintaining remote habitats or breeding endangered species in captivity can appear ethically incongruous when preventable diseases and extreme poverty persist. Public policy, particularly in resource-constrained contexts, must be guided by triage: funds should flow first to initiatives that directly alleviate human suffering and stimulate economic productivity. While biodiversity has aesthetic and symbolic value, such intangible benefits cannot outweigh the moral imperative to prioritise food security, infrastructure resilience, and social welfare. From a pragmatic standpoint, conservation often represents an opportunity cost that societies can ill afford.

Furthermore, the functional necessity of wild animals has diminished in technologically advanced economies. Modern agriculture relies on controlled pollination, synthetic fertilisers, and genetically engineered crops rather than unpredictable natural ecosystems. Pharmaceutical innovation increasingly depends on laboratory synthesis and artificial intelligence, reducing reliance on bioprospecting in remote forests. Even materials once sourced from wildlife have been replaced by sustainable industrial alternatives. Urbanised societies now operate largely within engineered environments where human ingenuity, not wilderness, underpins survival and prosperity. In this context, preserving vast tracts of land exclusively for wildlife may impede infrastructure development, renewable energy projects, or housing expansion—initiatives that deliver measurable benefits to millions. As humanity assumes greater control over its environment, the instrumental role of wild fauna correspondingly contracts.

In conclusion, given the severity of contemporary social challenges and the ascendancy of technological substitutes for ecological functions, prioritising wildlife conservation is neither economically rational nor socially equitable. Redirecting resources toward urgent human development and innovation would yield more immediate and substantial dividends. Consequently, I fully endorse the view that preserving wild animals in the twenty-first century constitutes a misallocation of scarce resources.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!