Some people believe that a significant amount of time and money is allocated to the conservation of wild animals, suggesting that these resources could be better utilized for the benefit of the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this viewpoint?

Nowadays, many authorities receive substantial funds through direct and indirect donations to safeguard wildlife. They contribute from their own pockets to manage these efforts.

While

some argue that state budgets should be directed towards protecting the human population, I strongly support

this

perspective and would like to elaborate on it. On one hand, the majority of countries worldwide grapple with issues

such

as poverty and hunger.

In other words

, people across various continents lack access to clean water and sufficient nourishment to survive.

For instance

, citizens of African nations have to walk up to 20 km daily to access drinkable water.

Consequently

, African governments should focus on effectively managing their investments to provide their citizens with basic living standards,

instead

of allocating excessive funds towards wildlife preservation.

On the other hand

, the impact of the coronavirus disease continues to escalate.

For example

, in the United Kingdom, over 1000 small businesses have had to close

due to

reduced consumer interest. Governments could extend substantial subsidies and donations to sustain these enterprises.

Hence

, it is imperative for each country's government to prioritize the well-being of its population over protecting endangered species when allocating monetary resources. In conclusion,

while

some authorities prioritize animal conservation, others emphasize the welfare of their citizens. In my view, every government should balance its financial resources to optimize the health and safety standards of its population

while

minimizing spending on the protection of endangered animals.