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

In this day and age, there is a common belief that numerous time and money should be allocated on plans that directly benefit the human race, instead of conservation projects. From my perspective, even though this standpoint might be justifiable to a certain extent, I believe that reality has proven otherwise. Ċ On the one hand, it would be absurd to ignore the fact that wild creatures are still being threatened, irrespective of human’s effort and money. In other words, although hundreds of million dollars have been diverted on numerable conservation projects, such as: preventing the demise of hundreds of species or providing shelter for those that are endangered, recent years has witnessed the increase of extinction rate. Therefore, the human’s past effort seems to be woefully inadequate, let alone excessive. If the governments do not invest a portion of their national funding in protecting wild animals, the ecosystem might be wholly devastated. Ċ On the other hand, there is ample evidence that there is an inextricable relationship between humans and wildlife, which means that the extinction of wild animals could seriously threaten the survival of mankind. In other words, even if a single wild species is missing from the ecosystem, it may disrupt the food chain, which could spell troubles for humankind’s living standards. Take pollinating insects as a salient example. The decline in pollinating insects can do the growth of crops a disservice since it takes a toll on agricultural productivity. This is a testament to how spending on the protection of wild animals is also synonymous with safeguarding human’s life. Ċ The conclusion to be drawn is that saving wildlife is actually of great importance to the survival of human beings.