Both government and individuals are spending too much money protecting animals and their habitat. This money should be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree? v.2

Not only governments but also citizens are allocating a huge amount of budget to prevent animals and their habit from the threat. However, it is more essential to spend money on tackling society' s problems. From my perspective, I partly agree with this idea illustrated below. There are several benefits when ensuring the safety of wildlife. Firstly, a handful number of rare animals would be on the edge of extinction; therefore, if authorities do not invest funds in constructing wildlife sanctuaries, these kinds of species are likely to no longer appear due to overfishing and poaching. Secondly, scientists may rely on animal behaviors to define the best method for preservation of the natural habitat. For example, some kinds of crocodiles have abilities to predict the unprecedented events such as earthquakes, tsunami or hail. Apart from the statement mentioned above, the quality of human life is also especially important in social development. Firstly, living under the poverty line is a major problem in some underdeveloped countries. This is because the mortality rate is extremely alarming due to annual starvation without any financial support from local authorities. Secondly, the real shortage of healthcare services has negative impacts on citizens' health conditions. For example, the outbreak of epidemic in African countries might be the culprit of insufficient professional doctors, hospitals, and infirmaries. Therefore, spending money on these fields is fundamentally paramount. In conclusion, in my opinion, both wildlife and human life are equally crucial in society; therefore, the national budget should be allocated proportionately to these sections.