Some people hold that we should spend a large amount of time and money on the protection of wild animals. Some people argue that they should be spent on human populations. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

While many advocate that the budget on wild animals preservation should be increased, the opponents argue that these resources are there to serve humanity matters. From my perspective, everything has its pros and cons, and we need to delve into both sides before forming any opinions. On the one hand, if we want to maintain a healthy ecological balance on the Earth, we must allocate more resources on wildlife protection. More precisely, since all living creatures have their unique functions to nature, we have to preserve all species. Taking bees as an example, providing that

this

type of animal becomes extinct in wildlife, it will cause mass death in the flora system since they lose the pollinators to reproduce, and

then

, the whole food chain will be thrown off balance.

Therefore

, promoting biodiversity is vital for a healthy and functional ecosystem.

On the other hand

, it is irrefutable that governments in

third

-world countries will give priority to support their citizens who live in poverty, famine, natural disasters or deadly diseases.

In other words

,

instead

of investing in wildlife preservations, the authorities have to allocate their money and time on humanity issues.

For instance

, once a year, Vietnamese have to confront many tropical storms from the East Sea. Most of the time, all crops and houses are destroyed, so that the government has no choice but spending a large number of resources on rebuilding the mid-side.

Thus

, the resources for animals’ reservations are usually on the budget. In conclusion, in view of the arguments above, I have to agree that both aspects have their own merits.

However

, even though protecting animals and humans are equally important, I believe that humans seem to be the priority since we try to protect our own kind

first

.