Some people hold that we should spend the 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

it has long been debated whether we should be working to save

wildlife

or improve the living conditions of humans, I tend to believe that

wildlife

should have a role to play in the world and

therefore

, investing in protecting

wildlife

and maintaining the diversity and balance of life in ecosystems is our responsibility. On the one hand, it is easy to understand why some would argue that humans should have a higher priority than all other species on Earth. It is undeniable that there are indeed many problems that need to be solved around us,

such

as backward infrastructure, urban traffic congestion, high housing prices, medical services for the elderly, etc. All of which require the state to invest a lot of money. In

this

regard, governments should not be distracted by other issues but should allocate limited funds to improving human living standards.

However

, despite the plausibility of

this

claim, it does not mean that improving human life should come at the expense of ecological balance and the survival of other animals. We must not ignore that the extinction of other animals will have harmful consequences.

For example

, if there were no snakes and owls, there would be no natural enemies of rats in the fields, which would lead to reduced crop yields. Famine in poor countries would not be solved. Another factor we cannot ignore is the loss of species diversity, which may have a knock-on effect on biological and natural science research in the long run. In general, I would reiterate that we should consider human life and

wildlife

conservation equally.