First short Essay.

[Zaccaria]

Hi,

this is my first Essay Please correct it )



Is it important to ptrotect endangered animals?

Who it’s aloud to decide about the right to life?
On the one hand we have so many different animals in our world, especially in the rainforest, we could not imagine.
On the other hand we have so many humans in the world, they all need a space to life and build their house and farms.
So, what it’s more important? Grape the landscape for the human business, or don’t touch the landscape and let them for all the wild animals who wants to live in this area?
I think that humans should take their space they need, but they have the responsibility to protect the living animals in this area. We need to find some tactics to realize that.
We have some augments for the protecting the animals like the right of living for all indicium’s in the world. Animals are important for the nature balance and natural selection. The tigers for example make sure that no other animals are growing up to fast, and they eat all the ill animals, like a forest guard. The endangered animals need our special protection. Because we could make some good things like medicine form the poison from special spiders. The species diversity of our world is a part of us all, we should protect them.
Otherwise, not all animals are absolute necessary for a good world balance, if you read david precht, you know that we don’t need them all for a “good” world. And we have so many humans in our world and all need a place to live and work. For this we need the resources form some special places in the world. That we have no other choice to destroy the living space from engagement animals.
I think it important to find a way, that’s includes both. On the one hand the right of living for all individuals in the world, and on the other hand the respect and protect to engaged animals

[Delfino]

Hi,

This is my first Essay
Please correct it )


Is it important to protect the animals of endangered species?
Who is allowed to decide about their right to life?

On the one hand we have so many different species in our world, especially in the rainforest, more than we could imagine.
On the other hand we have Earth's huge human population, they all need a space to life, build their houses and farms.
So, what it’s more important?

Either we use the land for our human business, or you don’t touch it and let all the wild animals roam. But who wants to live in such an area?
I think that humans could take all the space they need, but they should have the responsibility to protect the animals living in this area.
We need to find a way to realise this vision of respectful coexistence.

We have some augments for the protecting the animals like the right of living for all indicium’s in the world.
Animals are important for the nature balance and natural selection.
The tigers for example make sure that no other animals are growing up to fast, and they eat all the ill animals, like a forest guard.
The endangered animals need our special protection.
Because we could make some good things like medicine form the poison from special spiders.
The species diversity of our world is a part of us all, we should protect them.
Otherwise, not all animals are absolute necessary for a good world balance, if you read David Precht, you know that we don’t need them all for a “good” world. Who is allowed to decide about their right to life?
And we have so many humans in our world and all need a place to live and work.
For this we need the resources form some special places in the world.
That we have no other choice to destroy the living space from engagement animals.
I think it important to find a way, that’s includes both.
On the one hand the right of living for all individuals in the world, and on the other hand the respect and protect to engaged animals.

Your solution is problematic as there won't be any space left for animals to use,
if humans took all they 'need' first...

btw. there is no human law or regulation that gives all animals the right to live.
Maybe you can try to always include a German version to avoid us guessing the meaning of your sentences
especially in the lower part...

What do you mean with augments, and what is indicium? ...

As far as we know tigers don't have a sense of their duty to make sure that...


Richard David Precht has no educational background in biology or science,
and therefore, his views about Earth's ecosystem are rather philosophical.

[Zaccaria]

Hi,

This is my first Essay
Please correct it )


Is it important to protect the animals of endangered species?
Who is allowed to decide about their right to life?

On the one hand we have so many different species in our world, especially in the rainforest, more than we could imagine.
On the other hand we have Earth's huge human population, they all need a space to life, build their houses and farms.
So, what it’s more important?

Either we use the land for our human business, or you don’t touch it and let all the wild animals roam. But who wants to live in such an area?
I think that humans could take all the space they need, but they should have the responsibility to protect the animals living in this area.
We need to find a way to realise this vision of respectful coexistence.

We have some augments for the protecting the animals like the right of living for all indicium’s in the world.
Animals are important for the nature balance and natural selection.
The tigers for example make sure that no other animals are growing up to fast, and they eat all the ill animals, like a forest guard.
The endangered animals need our special protection.
Because we could make some good things like medicine form the poison from special spiders.
The species diversity of our world is a part of us all, we should protect them.
Otherwise, not all animals are absolute necessary for a good world balance, if you read David Precht, you know that we don’t need them all for a “good” world. Who is allowed to decide about their right to life?
And we have so many humans in our world and all need a place to live and work.
For this we need the resources form some special places in the world.
That we have no other choice to destroy the living space from engagement animals.
I think it important to find a way, that’s includes both.
On the one hand the right of living for all individuals in the world, and on the other hand the respect and protect to engaged animals.

Your solution is problematic as there won't be any space left for animals to use,
if humans took all they 'need' first...

btw. there is no human law or regulation that gives all animals the right to live.
Maybe you can try to always include a German version to avoid us guessing the meaning of your sentences
especially in the lower part...

What do you mean with augments, and what is indicium? ...

As far as we know tigers don't have a sense of their duty to make sure that...


Richard David Precht has no educational background in biology or science,
and therefore, his views about Earth's ecosystem are rather philosophical.

thanks for advide. Bear and helping hand

i try a new one. If you can take a short look, that would be great

Here is my new version



Essay

Have animals got rights? And if so what rights have got what animals?

Humans and animals are both creatures of the world they have the same right to exist. If we ask the question about the rights, we must accept that humans are authorized to awards rights of exist. In this Essay is this preexisting.

Charls Dawin dissolving the question about the right to exist with the famous assumption “survival of the fittest”. Nowadays it’s more a “survival of the sweetest”.

If we talking today about the rights of animals most people think about special reservation like the Yellowstone national park or the demonstration by animal rights activist again e.g. the Road Trains (they transport hundreds of cows) in Australia.

The best protection for animals is the “sweet lvl”. The sweet and good looking animals are getting heavier right to exist as e.g. spiders or other “non sweet animals”. In Germany feels like the whole population of Germans are able to protect a ice bear named “Knut”. This bear got rights like a newborn.

The most animals have the rights to exist by then they cross humans. If a human need a place e.g. a part of the rain forest, in most case, they simple take it and kill or banish here and there living animals.

In the end, I think, the rights for animals depends in the “sweet level” and if the animal cross humans or not.

Thank you