Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

In recent decades, there is little doubt that a lot of time and money has been spent on protecting wildlife. Some people argue that it is higher important to allocate these resources to the human population. However, I strongly disagree with this view for some reasons. First of all, it is undeniable that wildlife extinction could result in ecological crisis, which definitely affects human survival. For example, if the practice of whaling is not halted, the ecosystems of our oceans will be altered forever, and this might have a negative impact on fish stocks that many communities depend on for a living. Secondly, protecting wild animals means preserving our habitats in which we are living, such as rainforests and wetlands. If the habitat destruction is permitted, climate change would impact our capacity of producing food to sustain the growing human population. Furthermore, the protection of wild animals can also bring several benefits to human communities thanks to the formation of wildlife reserves. In order to generate revenue for their management, responsible ecotourism to observe animals in the wild could be developed further. This, consequently, will help create jobs for local people and attract more visitors to the reserves. The result is increased prosperity when local communities, especially in developing countries, are involved in running wildlife safaris. Thus, the application of intelligent strategies not only beneficial to humans but also wildlife. In conclusion, I would maintain that it is still worth spending an enormous amount of time and money on the protection of wild animals because of its great advantages for both human communities and wildlife.
What to do next:
Try other services:

All the services are free for Premium users