In recent years, investing money in saving endangered species and their habitats has become increasingly common for governments and people. Some argue that more funds should be allocated to address social problems like reducing the number of poor dwellers and improving the healthcare system. In my opinion, I agree with the latter point of view, since addressing social problems can lead to a stronger economy.
Admittedly, there is no doubt that spending money on protecting extinct animals and their habitats is crucial for maintaining biodiversity in some cases. By keeping the life-endangered species and their residential areas, human beings can tackle many environmental issues. In other words, there are many serious problems worldwide, especially in countries where the main part of income comes from agriculture, and the farmers of these countries struggle with reducing the crop pests which are the main source of food for ground beetles, considered endangered. If the government maximizes the number of such species, it would be better for the country. Investing funds therefore in saving unique kinds is important for both animals and individuals.
On the other hand, I believe that alleviating common problems like poverty and the well-being of residents is more important as opposed to anything, even if it will be about the loss of unique animals. The driving force behind allocating money to deal with social problems is that there is nothing more valuable than a person’s life. Poverty and welfare issues can easily lead to the death of people. Africa can be exemplified in this case, coming across millions of deaths because of incurable diseases or hunger and drought. If the government supplies people with drugs or food, the rate of morale would be decreased. Thus, states ought to focus on their dwellers firstly, helping them financially.
In conclusion, while there are some benefits of focusing on animals’ lives, I strongly believe, the first focus should be on individuals.