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

Environmentalists have long advocated fighting to protect endangered

animals

globally. It is argued by Some that authorities should pay more for endangered species to confirm their existence,

while

others believe it is an extravagance.

Although

protecting the

animals

under threat is essential, the government should spend more to improve the basic standards of human beings. My subsequent crumb of writing will elucidate my viewpoints with relevant examples.

To begin

with, the protection of human life is more vital than the security of

animals

. The majority of the community living in developing and undeveloped countries are struggling for food, clothes and shelter to satisfy their basic needs. Without consolidating the hunger of the poor people, there is no ethics in saving the

animals

.

For example

, Kerala state had spent more on protecting an elephant which was a nuisance to the public;

instead

, they should have organised a new accommodation for the sufferers would have been cost-effective.

Hence

, to confirm the safety of human beings state should spend more on them rather than on

animals

.

Additionally

, even if the ministry pays a lot for endangered species, we can not guarantee their survival. If an investment is futile, it is a punishable crime that must be questioned by the court.

For example

, Australia had spent a lot on Feral cats to protect them from extinction, and still, it is at the same point of threat

due to

enormous land clearing, which caused the loss of habitat. On that account, the administration must be careful in utilising money on

animals

rather than for the advantages of human life. To summarise, it is the ruling organisation's responsibility to ensure the convenience of the community rather than the

animals

.