Whether or not we should stop mining projects? The question of whether or not we should stop mining firms from putting species under protection is a subject of much debate. In light of massive increases in mining projects, they begin driving species to the verge of extinction, so we need to restrict and force them to come to a halt. The argument that we should limit mining activities is both supported and refuted by many. Both arguments will be analyzed before I draw a conclusion. On the one hand, huge areas of natural habitats are devastated during the mining construction and exploitation, forcing animals to leave their sites. For example, more of the remaining terrestrial wildlife habitats in the U.S have been cut into fragments by mining projects, which made it hard for animals to find a new place to rest and feed. Although there are many opponents suggesting that mining activities are not the main issue on habitat destruction, to a greater extent they affect the surrounding negatively. Thus, it can be easily seen that stopping these projects to protect species is on top of our agenda. On the other hand, there is no doubt that proceeding mining activities is a significant part of a national economy. A good example is mining projects in the Quang Ninh province, in Vietnam, which accounted for 90 percent of annual coal export of Vietnam. Even though it may be argued that these projects should be stopped due to the issue of environmental pollution and the loss of biodiversity, they gave big contribution to the overall growth of economic prosperity. This, in turn, leads to an argument why the mining companies need to be proceed. After considering both opposing points of view, it is my view that we should not stop mining activities. In the foreseeable future, it is highly likely that this trend will take place as part of economic development.