Both governments and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitat. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree? v.1

The budgetary allocation to the prevention of animals and their habit from the threat expensed by not only government but also citizens. However, it is more essential to spend money on tackling society's problems. From my perspective, I partly agree with this idea which is 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, unless the construction of wildlife sanctuaries gives financial aid by authorities, the existence of some kind of endangered animals would be assured because overfishing and poaching may be underused. Secondly, the reliance on animal behaviours may help scientists to define the best method for preservation of the natural habitat. For example, some kinds of crocodiles have abilities to make predictions about 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 below poverty lines is a major problem in some underdeveloped countries. This is because mortality rates is extremely increasing due to annual starvation without any financial support from local authorities. Secondly, a real shortage of health care services has tremendous impacts on citizens' health conditions. For instance, 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, national budgets should be allocated proportionately to these sections.