Both governments and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitat. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in the society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree?

Recently, a significant amount of expenditure was allocated to protecting animals and their habitat by both authorities and people. Several argue it should be spent on essential problems in the community,

such

as poverty and health care. I completely agree with

this

view since protecting society from impoverishment can prevent them from hurting creatures, and providing better medical therapy enhances the way they treat other living beings.

To begin

with, saving humanity from destitution can deter individuals from destroying wildlife.

In other words

, when in a desperate condition, a part of them may do everything to get money, including illegal activities regarding animals, particularly trading them for their benefit.

For example

, with the growing demand for predators

such

as lions and tigers among affluent societies, people hunt and breed them in designed environments to sell at high prices.

As a result

, a recent economic study estimated that the value of transactions resulting from

this

practice has reached more than 1 billion dollars every year.

However

, unfortunately, a plethora of them become merely servants as a symbol of social status, and

it is clear that

this

practice damages their natural position.

In addition

, if the government can enhance medical facilities with more funding, society may treat creatures better.

This

is

due to

the fact that a great number of them suffer from diseases and face the high cost of pharmaceutical therapy, and these conditions can make them find it difficult to treat others, including their pets,

whereas

the opponent will likely have the time and budget to provide a good environment and treatment for theirs.

For instance

, a recent study discovered that in a country with 100% health coverage, the majority of the citizens give their pets insurance, indicating that they provide for the same basic needs as they do for themselves. In conclusion,

while

there was a vast amount of budget accounted for protecting animals from authorities and communities, I believe

this

asset should be focused on fundamental issues, especially medical care and impoverished conditions. For one thing, subsidizing the former may make it more accessible for individuals;

consequently

, they can allocate more cash to their pets. For another, resolving the latter can prevent unlawful behaviour that can damage wildlife, resulting in better treatment for them.