Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

The question of whether

humans

are misspending our money and time on wildlife conservation has been a topic of interest. One school of thought holds that those efforts should be allocated to projects relating to

humans

. In

this

essay, I will elaborate on my disagreement with that view. It is somewhat understandable why many people subscribe to the view that too much time and money is currently being spent on wildlife maintenance. Advocates may argue that society can not prevent the extinction of some animals,

therefore

,

instead

of concentrating too much on protecting them, governments could use the state's funds to build and upgrade public infrastructure so that they could meet the huge requirements of the rising population.

However

,

this

perspective is flawed. I believe that preserving wild animals is in dire need. One key rationale is that

humans

and animals have an extricable relationship. To be specific, if even one single species is missing from the ecosystem, it may disrupt the food chain, and ultimately take a toll on human life.

Taking

Wrong verb form

Take

show examples

sharks as a good example. As apex predators, they stand at the pinnacle of the food chain, crucially maintaining the balance of marine life by regulating prey populations. Sadly, approximately 100 million sharks are slaughtered annually and almost a third of them are endangered. Without shark conservation, the health of marine habitats can be affected severely, which could have an adverse bearing on the seafood industry. In conclusion,

while

remedying human issues based on wildlife preservation funds seems a good idea, I would contend that it is an unwise solution. For long-term advantages,

humans

should put more time and effort into protection projects.