Prompt: In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think more money should be spent on researching other planet to live, such as Mars. Ċ To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people have claimed that more financial resources should be allocated to universe study to find out other habitable places for human, due to the increasingly harsh life on Earth. From my perspective, that budget should be spent in protecting the environment instead. Ċ In the first place, over population and problems regarding environmentSuggestionthe environment are primary reasons for severe life on this planet. However, according to Hans Roling, a TED Talk speaker, the global population would reach 11 billion people in the next 50 years and level off. The reason for this is that the majority of citizens all around the world, including Africa, have been all aware of the adverse impacts of over population and tends to bear fewer children. Meanwhile, Hans also added that the global natural resources are enough to nurture 11 billion residents. Ċ In the second place, I am of the view that more money should be invested in protecting the environment rather than searching for other livable planets. For instance, budget for producing missile nuclear weapons should be transferred to installing solar energy batteries and building windmills, which can help to reduce the burden on natural resources such as fuel. Nevertheless, I object to the conviction that universe study should be given better investment since this process costs a large amount of money but has little prospect. Taking Mars as an example, apart from water, the planet lacks every essential factor in human’s life including oxygen and food resources. Ċ In conclusion, I believe that the natural resources on this planet is enough for all citizens and I argue that it is unrealistic to spend more money on finding other habitable planets while ignoring the environment.