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

Some humanity experts have an idea that the government should spend time and revenue on the citizens instead of wild animals' safety. I completely agree with this statement because for two reasons: we need more facilities, and if we have well-being we can also protect the wild animals as well as ourselves. Ċ First, the idea of well being was presented by specialists about the facility in our community. Some of them were broken and there are no organizations from the government come to fix or solve the problem which may cause a dangerous accident to society especially children and the elderly. Moreover, from NUS University research, in ,Singapore there is a great 35% of the homeless community who do not get any benefit from the government such as shelters or food. So their thoughts are money from taxation should make everyone life better with equality. Including, lights and water which in some rural areas is not able to reach. Ċ Another important point is wildlife; however, if the population has well being and more money for their work hours more than three-fourth of them are ready to support the wildlife and also rescue pets from the dangers. In addition, people from every class can treat themselves from the illness with affordable hospital's bills. For example, in the United States, citizens that could afford medical care 91% were the rich or in the middle class, while most of the time lower class has to cure themselves without medicines. Ċ To conclude, the pros of spending money on community outweigh the cons. This is because human healthcare and a place to live are crucial for everyone. If all of the citizens have all these things they can treat themselves and animals without any problems.