Both governments and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitat. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree? Support your opinion with relevant examples and ideas. Write at least 250 words.

It is advocated that governments, together with citizens, are allocating great funds to the conservation of species and the ecosystem, which could

otherwise

be spent on coping with basic problems, namely either indigence or healthcare. From my perspective, I voice disapproval of the aforementioned, in that I believed it is rather one-sided when not taking into consideration the big picture. In the

first

place, it is undeniable that protecting

animals

and preserving

wildlife

is of the utmost importance if we wish to safeguard a better future for our successors.

That is

to say, many species are on the brink of extinction due to habitat destruction, for which humans are largely held responsible.

This

would take a toll on the ecological balance ,in the long run,

thus

posing a threat to our human beings.

For example

, white North African rhinos have recently died out after 55 million years surviving on Earth, which could possibly be the foreseeable case for many more species if we do not invest a greater amount of money in conserving them. What is more,

animals

are claimed to have the same right to live and thrive as humans which are known as

animals

' welfare.

In other words

, it would be both immoral and irrational if we do not take firm actions after causing great harm to their survival. Concerning the fact that individuals could not directly save the endangered ones, funding money is a good way of making joint efforts to support researchers and scientists in saving them.

For instance

, there exist a lot of funding programmes and non-governmental organizations namely WWF that people could donate to help save the

wildlife

.

Nevertheless

, when it comes to tackling

such

social issues as poverty and healthcare, it is not so much a nerve-racking problem as a challenge.

In particular

, so as to overcome the obstacle, authorities could launch separate funding sources, one for

wildlife

preserve, and the other for public matters, which depends on people's own preferences to opt for what aspect they express interest in. As an illustration, while Bill Gates donated millions of dollars to his vaccine foundation for the sake of human's well beings, a Swiss philanthropist contributed $35 million dollars to save the creatures and the planet. All things considered, though it is

also

crucial that indigence and health-related problems be tackled, conserving

animals

and their habitats should take precedence over others to a certain extent.

Therefore

, I do not support the above-mentioned view which states that money could be better spent on dealing with social issues rather than

wildlife

preservation.