Is the continual fight to save endangered animals absolutely necessary? All the time and effort that is put into saving them seems hardly ever rewarded. Do these animals actually provide anything to the planet that is needed? What do pandas do? How about lions and tigers and bears? Oh my!

Or is it just a bunch of (insert expletive here) hippies looking for an excuse to fight? Or to get their heads on TV? Do these people have nothing better to do and nothing in their lives that they can run around the place trying to save every animal that is dying out? Is it all just some lame grab at their fifteen minutes of fame? Oh, I saved the fat-bellied sloth. Aren’t I great!!

Are animals wanted? Don’t they just eat food that could feed people that are starving? Isn’t this planet already suffering from overpopulation? Animals just seem to take up room on this earth that could be better utilised by more people – to procreate and make more people.

Hang on there.

Maybe, just maybe, I have this the wrong way round. Maybe the problem is not the animals that are dying out every day, but the constant (and greedy) push by humanity to try and swallow up every last corner of the planet for their own selfish reasons.

This lump of rock is a very, very big place. The planet Earth has a surface area of over 500 million square kilometres. Admittedly, only 149 million square kilometres is land area whilst the rest of it, some 361 square kilometres, is sea area. But with that amount of room, don’t we have enough to be able to sustain both humans and animals? We already know that there are too many people to be able to sustain them.

There has never been an issue with animals overpopulating this planet. There has never been a hint of an insinuation that animals created global warming or raped and pillaged the planet to the point where it is at the verge of environmental collapse.

Now for the facts: animals have existed for over 100 million years. They have evolved over that time to fit their environment. Humans (in this guise of behavioural modernity) have only existed for 50,000 years.

Within that period we have gone from being subsistence farmers to having a global population of 6.91 BILLION.

I see the hole in the logic now. Do you? 100 million years versus 50 thousand. That is a radical difference in the amount of time of earth, yet after homo sapiens evolved the world started to go to pot.

So should animals, especially endangered ones, be saved from becoming extinct? Should we start taking steps to control the population of people as well?

The answer to both these questions is an unreserved, and shout-out loud, yes! Animals were here before us. Humanity has done enough damage to the world and does not need to be blamed for the demise of animals as well.