Prompt: funds on national problems vs wildlife issues Q: It is often said that governments spend too much money on projects to protect wildlife, while there are other problems that are more important? Do you agree or disagree?

It is sometimes argued that governments invest a considerable amount of money in preserving wild animals as opposed to other more serious issues existing in society. While I agree with this point of view to some extent, I believe that the monetary support to wildlife protection should not be neglected. Ċ On the one hand, governments would be likely to give priority to address the problems of economy, education, public health and social inequality instead of wildlife conservation as allocating financial resources. For instance, If the problem of an economic recession in certain countries is unable to be tackled, they do not have sufficient money to assist wild creatures. By spending a great deal of money on regenerating some natural habitats, such as regrowing trees or rainforests, there is a wide range of wildlife that can be saved. Furthermore, without making an endeavour to educate citizens that requires an increase in government funding, they would be less aware of environmental issue. Ċ On the other hand, the large proportion of governments expenditure on how to efficiently preserve wildlife should be maintained, otherwise humans may suffer irreversible damages. For example, the huge areas of forests are cleared leading to the disappearance of natural habitats, and that people exploit these lands as farming lands. This inappropriate behaviour breaks the food chain and causes an imbalanced ecological system. Therefore, governments should spend more money on this in case of losing unique species forever. Ċ In conclusion, it seems to me that governments should apportion the equal ratio of financial assistance between the national problems and wildlife issues so that we are able to peacefully coexist with the majority of creatures on Earth.