Both texts have nature as their main subject, but how they reffer to it is completely different,

as the first one is all about protecting it while the second one mention the benefits of
exploiting it, but not saying it is ethical or not.

The first text wants to make sure how important really is letting nature alone, avoiding any
kind human disruption, blaming humans for destroying various hábitats as a result of their
activities. Not only are habitats what the man destroys, but he also deplete nature resources,
being animals one of the most importants if not the most important. On the other hand, the
second text is the complete opposite, talking about nature as a huge source of resources, from
animals to be consumed as expensive and weird delicacies to entire forest just to produce a
cheap wooden table anyone can buy. Even though it might be seen as an horrible activity, it
not always the worker´s fault, as they are just doing their job to survive.

In my opinión, the first text does not do its Jobs well. Yes, it might talk about how important
nature is and how we should leave it on its own, but that´s something everybody knows
nowadays. Not only it is focused on the side of nature, but it completely ignores the human
part, just talking about it by saying how evil it is. Either if we like it or not, our economy is base
don products and services, and to obtain products, resources are needed, althought getting
them in a responsible way is a completely different subject. This is something that the second
text does pretty well when talking about workers, as they are just trying t olive one more day,
even though how harmful their job might be. It is a powerful message, but when exagerations
like whiping an entire forest to produce one table or hinting that every fish in the sea is a
delicacy is a bit too much. By using such extreme examples, it only can be two things:Either the
subject is treated as a parody or the writer is way too naive about it.

As a conclusión, I don´t think any of these two text accomplished what they were trying. Both
of them have good points, but they end up swept away by some ridiculous arguments. Yes,
nature should be conserved, and even more nowadays, and yes, human lives are also
important, but these two matters should be treated equally and equivalently, avoiding
extreme cases that really are just poor examples that really don´t reach any point and,
therefore, should not be considered as valid cases.