In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think more money should be spent on researching other planet to live, such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people have claimed that more financial resources should be allocated to universe study to find out other habitable places for human, due to the increasingly harsh life on Earth. From my perspective, that budget should be spent in protecting the

environment

instead

. In the

first

place, over population and problems regarding

environment

Suggestion

the environment

are primary reasons for severe life on

this

planet.

However

, according to Hans Roling, a TED Talk speaker, the global population would reach 11 billion people in the

next

50 years and level off. The reason for

this

is that the majority of citizens all around the world, including Africa, have been all aware of the adverse impacts of over population and tends to bear fewer children. Meanwhile, Hans

also

added that the global natural resources are enough to nurture 11 billion residents. In the

second

place, I am of the view that more money should be invested in protecting the

environment

rather than searching for other livable planets.

For instance

, budget for producing missile nuclear weapons should be transferred to installing solar energy batteries and building windmills, which can help to reduce the burden on natural resources

such

as fuel.

Nevertheless

, I object to the conviction that universe study should be given better investment since

this

process costs a large amount of money but has little prospect. Taking Mars as an example, apart from water, the planet lacks every essential factor in human’s life including oxygen and food resources. In conclusion, I believe that the natural resources on

this

planet is enough for all citizens and I argue that it is unrealistic to spend more money on finding other habitable planets while ignoring the

environment

.