Wild animals have no place in the 21th century. So protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

In the present day, when a country tends to prioritize improving the living conditions of all humans, they appear to disregard the other aspects that

also

build lives, our wildlife. To underline why I fairly disagree with the idea that we are unable to spare the dissimilar living beings a place to inherit their kinds, the discussion will be illustrated below. The importance of tax and monetary resources outweigh lives. Animal protection costs the government considerable fiscal savings.

Hence

, investing the government budget in infrastructure, surveillance, and hospitality sounds more sensible and agreeable to the taxpayer.

Therefore

, the provided government scheme is always likely to enhance the focus on being protective of a governed society. With that, I have to point out my opinions on why I protest against

this

inconsiderate direction of our states.

First

, there is another tool for wildlife protection called awareness. By starting to educate oneself to understand how other living creatures have contributed towards building a balanced ecosystem and

thus

, a stable, healthy human society, establishes a foundation to avoid harming them.

Secondly

, anyone can help widen the wildlife homeland by voluntarily discouraging deforestation.

Although

these methods take time to progress, they are the need of the hour, without so much money that goes to waste. To conclude, the 21st-century era though pays attention to the capitalization and safety of the civilians; yet, I have to argue that humans may overlook the available potential tools which keep the world's wild animals alive. Humans must be there to sort out

this

problem by any means.