Some people think that more money should be spent on protecting endangered species while others think it is a waste of valuable money. What is your opinion?

There is no gain-saying that the society is polarized into two groups whether the

money

should be spent on

species

which are in a danger or not?

Although

the protection of

animals

is necessary to balance an eco-cycle, some countries can not afford these expenses due to low economies. In my opinion, I believe that to save biodiversity,

species

need to be saved. Undoubtedly, there is not merely

one

but a basketful of causative reasons why endangered

species

need protection, out of which, the most prominent

one

is that each plays a vital role in the environmental cycle. To put it

in other words

, depletion of

one

can impact various lives by which calamities can occur.

For instance

, In forest Carnivores depends on herbivores for their survival. If herbivores get depleted

then

carnivores can attack humans for their food.

Hence

, the extinction of

one

species

can impact detrimentally on the lives of others which can imbalance the whole biodiversity. Having said that when it comes to the opponents

then

the countries who are not capable to provide basic things

such

as shelter, education and food to their people, consider spending

money

on

animals

as wastage. The nations, that come under the poverty line are not developed and lack basic amenities for their people by which they can not afford expenses of

animals

and their protection. To substantiate it, India is a perfect epitome here where the government do not have a lot of budget for wildlife.

Therefore

, they use their

money

to upgrade the lifestyle of human beings and education rather than saving wild

animals

. To conclude, there would be no exaggeration to state that both viewpoints have their own ramifications. Even though the extinction of

species

need

Change the verb form

needs

show examples

to be stopped to conserve the environment;

however

some regions do not have sufficient

money

to be spent on the preservation of some lives.

Consequently

, I reckon that the elimination of certain

animals

may cause destruction in the food chain.