Some people believe that too many resources and attention are devoted to the protection of wild animals and birds. To what extend do you agree or disagree?

It has been a debatable topic that whether people should invest more money and resources in animal conservation today. Some suggest that the expenditure and resources should be spent on human society and to solve social problems. Although I partially subscribe to the idea that investment in wildlife protection will always be worthwhile I also opine that our national budget should be allocated to more urgent issues. To begin with, if human fail to protect wild aniamls, economic damages to many fields are inevitability. It is true that biodiversity has brought considerable economic values. If there was a disapperance of a wild animal, this would lead to dead threats to others species because of the interdependency. Therefore, the national economy would probably suffer heavy losses in which the exploitation of wild animals benefit considerably. To exemplify, some fishes that are prey to whales would disappear, resulting in the risk of decline in the number of whales. As a result, the fishing industry contributing to national budget would have an adverse impact. However, public money is limited. So we should allocate our national budget to more urgent issues rather than expending too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds. A case in point is that, more resources should be diverted to medical research to find out remedies for fatal diseases such as HIV and cancer, which may help to save thousands of lives in society. To recapitulate my ideas briefly, notwithstanding the fact that I am partial in favor of this opinion as protection of wildlife of our globe can play crucial role in our life. I also conjecture that our natonal fund ought to be designated to more vital issues