Some say we should spend our money and time on wildlife protection while others say it should be spent on populations living in the poorest areas of the world. What's your opinion?

A large number of people possess the belief that utilizing national budget and time on conserving wild animal is better to conduct than supporting the poverty. From my point of view, there are several valid reason to prioritize residents living under poverty line. On the one hand, numerous ideas finger out that protecting wilderness means protecting our habitants. To illustrate, regarding to some study that well-balanced ecosystem maintains the health of environment so human’s need still depend on biodiversity. Thus, if we keep ecological balance, our quality of life will enhance because of clean water and fresh food. Therefore, government, non-profit organizations, individuals has been contributing towards growing the population of wilderness, especially endangered species. On the other hand, it would be better to spend money on inhabitants who living under poverty line because that is the wise way to solve unemployment. If government use their budget to invest in education, several non-profit course such as crash course, introductory course, vocational course, demanding course which appropriate for all ages will be organized. Therefore, the poverty access to education. It leads to increasing skillful labor resources. In addition, there is obvious vision that we will transform slums into urbans when we solve unemployment. To illustrate, numerous experts provide clear evidence that unemployment rate concentrate highly in slums. Thus, when inhabitants living in desitution get positions, the Government improves slums and beauty urban landscape. In conclusion, I could not deny the importance of protecting wilderness. However, it much more beneficial when national budgets are spent on impoverished people.